Evidence register for 26/01831/FUL

National Planning Policy Framework December 2024

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.8, 5.3 · read from a scanned document

The principle of redeveloping this site is policy-compliant with paragraph 154g) of the Framework, which allows for the redevelopment of PDL, where there is no substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.36, 10.4 · read from a scanned document

then the site can reasonably be considered as a grey belt site and the scheme meets the requirements of paragraphs 155 - 157 of the Framework

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.36, 10.5 · read from a scanned document

then the Council must conclude that the proposals amount to inappropriate development within the Green Belt

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.36, 10.6 · read from a scanned document

The Council can no longer demonstrate a five year supply of housing and paragraph 11d) of the Framework is engaged.

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.36, 10.1 · read from a scanned document

In this case, the harm to the Green Belt is harm by way of definition only, with no other harms identified.

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.24, 7.29 · read from a scanned document

it was accepted that this is not a greenfield site and that it can be considered as a grey belt site if it can be demonstrated that the location is sustainable

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.5, 3.1 · read from a scanned document

Each new home will be provided with an electric vehicle charging point (EVCP), with zero emission vehicles being recognised in Annex 2: Glossary of the Framework as a sustainable transport mode.

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.20, 7.17 · read from a scanned document

with paragraph 110 acknowledging that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.20, 7.16 · read from a scanned document

The scheme will comply with the Golden Rules and this should be given significant weight in favour of granting planning permission (paragraph 158 of the Framework).

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.24, 7.28 · read from a scanned document

The provision of 10 dwellings towards the Council's acknowledged shortfall in supply should be given significant weight in the planning balance.

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.37, 10.8 · read from a scanned document

The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in December 2024

Transport Appraisal, final (ref 25477-02f), 12 August 2026 · p.2, 2.1.1

most recently revised in December 2024

Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, part 1 (revision A1-C02), 21 July 2026 · p.13, 3.1 · read from a scanned document

Whilst part of the site could be considered as PDL, the extent would need to be demonstrated at application stage as any parts of the site in horticultural (agricultural) use would not be PDL.

Advice of leading counsel on previously developed land, 17 July 2026 · p.3, 8, quoting the pre-application response · read from a scanned document

As such, any area of the site in agricultural use is not considered to be PDL.

Advice of leading counsel on previously developed land, 17 July 2026 · p.4, 9, quoting the pre-application response · read from a scanned document

The Site extends to approximately 1.84 hectares

Advice of leading counsel on previously developed land, 17 July 2026 · p.1, 2 · read from a scanned document

My advice is sought solely upon whether those observations are correct

Advice of leading counsel on previously developed land, 17 July 2026 · p.4, 10 · read from a scanned document

the 2024 edition of the National Planning Policy Framework

Advice of leading counsel on previously developed land, 17 July 2026 · p.4, 10 · read from a scanned document

I do not consider that the officer's observations (as set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 above) are correct and that the Site does constitute previously developed land

Advice of leading counsel on previously developed land, 17 July 2026 · p.4, 12 · read from a scanned document

Its use is accepted to be a mixed-use over the entirety of the Site. There is no basis for a subdivision of the sort that arose in Lee Valley.

Advice of leading counsel on previously developed land, 17 July 2026 · p.7, 22 · read from a scanned document

the northern part of the site was conceded not to be previously developed land

Advice of leading counsel on previously developed land, 17 July 2026 · p.5, 16 · read from a scanned document

in my view mean a building used for the purposes of agriculture alone

Advice of leading counsel on previously developed land, 17 July 2026 · p.6, 17, quoting the judgment · read from a scanned document

These buildings on the Site (and the hardstanding areas) are accepted to be no longer used for agricultural purposes alone.

Advice of leading counsel on previously developed land, 17 July 2026 · p.8, 22 · read from a scanned document

The whole of the site is therefore previously developed land.

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.9, 6.4 · read from a scanned document

A limited functional relationship is identified between the two primary growing and storage operations, resulting in two materially different uses occurring. When combining these factors, the uses as presented, are separate within the site.

Certificate of lawful existing use 25/00721/LDE: decision notice, 15 May 2025 · p.1

This area had further greenhouses/polytunnels and there was a small area used for the growing of very immature plants in plug trays

Certificate of lawful existing use 25/00721/LDE: officer's delegated report, 15 May 2025 · p.5 · read from a scanned document

Around 17-25% of the site area is used for the growing of plants (cover letter)

Certificate of lawful existing use 25/00721/LDE: officer's delegated report, 15 May 2025 · p.7 · read from a scanned document

the western part of the site has primarily been used for plant sales and the processing and storage of imported plants, and the eastern part primarily used as a nursery production area

Certificate of lawful existing use 25/00721/LDE: officer's delegated report, 15 May 2025 · p.7, quoting the applicant's statutory declaration · read from a scanned document

This presents a claim that around one third of the site has been used for agricultural uses.

Certificate of lawful existing use 25/00721/LDE: officer's delegated report, 15 May 2025 · p.7 · read from a scanned document

it is clear that there is a substantial agricultural operation occurring at the site currently

Certificate of lawful existing use 25/00721/LDE: officer's delegated report, 15 May 2025 · p.7 · read from a scanned document

suggesting that the structures have been re-purposed for storage rather than growing

Certificate of lawful existing use 25/00721/LDE: officer's delegated report, 15 May 2025 · p.6 · read from a scanned document

single span polythene tunnels for the production of horticultural crops

Certificate of lawful existing use 25/00721/LDE: officer's delegated report, 15 May 2025 · p.4, planning history, 92/00782/FUL · read from a scanned document

with a smaller but by no means insignificant use of horticulture continuing on site

Certificate of lawful existing use 25/00721/LDE: officer's delegated report, 15 May 2025 · p.12 · read from a scanned document

3,892.02 m2 11,730.4 m3

Green Belt Appraisal, Appendix A: existing building footprints and volumes (drawing 24-059-02), October 2024 · p.1 · read from a scanned document

The schedule lists 21 structures. Eleven rows are polytunnels (3,302.82 square metres and 9,511.3 cubic metres in total) and one is a glasshouse (358.75 square metres and 1,631.7 cubic metres). Together they are 94% of the footprint and 95% of the volume. The remaining nine rows (a portacabin, a canopy, sheds, toilets, offices and a tank) total about 230 square metres and 587 cubic metres. The totals are our addition of the rows on the drawing.

1,159.16 3,656

Green Belt Appraisal, Appendix A: existing building footprints and volumes (drawing 24-059-02), October 2024 · p.1, row 10 · read from a scanned document

Glass-house 358.75 1,631.7

Green Belt Appraisal, Appendix A: existing building footprints and volumes (drawing 24-059-02), October 2024 · p.1, row 17 · read from a scanned document

The existing site buildings create a footprint total of 3,892m2 and a volume of 11,730m3 (see Appendix A of this report). The overall average massing height of the existing buildings is just over 3 metres.

Green Belt Appraisal (ref DE600_GBA_001B), 21 July 2026 · p.8, 3.1.6

The heights of the buildings to be constructed on the site would vary between 5m and 8m in height.

Green Belt Appraisal (ref DE600_GBA_001B), 21 July 2026 · p.9, 3.1.9

Overall, built-form coverage within the site would decrease by 47% and the volume of development within the site would decrease by 9.5% (11,730m3 decreasing to 10,607m3).

Green Belt Appraisal (ref DE600_GBA_001B), 21 July 2026 · p.9

the level of harm of the proposed development on spatial openness would be None

Green Belt Appraisal (ref DE600_GBA_001B), 21 July 2026 · p.9

it is concluded that the level of harm to visual openness arising from the proposed development would be None

Green Belt Appraisal (ref DE600_GBA_001B), 21 July 2026 · p.11, 3.2.10

A considerable increase to development within the site which, in the context of the proposed development, is deemed to equate to a >25% increase to built volume.

Green Belt Appraisal (ref DE600_GBA_001B), 21 July 2026 · p.6, Table 2.1

The height of the proposed buildings would be greater than those currently located on the site, however the massing of built form would be reduced.

Green Belt Appraisal (ref DE600_GBA_001B), 21 July 2026 · p.11, 3.2.7

only the upper parts (i.e. first floors and/or roofs) would be perceptible

Green Belt Appraisal (ref DE600_GBA_001B), 21 July 2026 · p.11, 3.2.9

The proposed development would be visible in views from the footpaths and bridleway to the east of the site.

Green Belt Appraisal (ref DE600_GBA_001B), 21 July 2026 · p.11, 3.2.7

the proposed development would be physically separate from the village of Claverdon to the east

Green Belt Appraisal (ref DE600_GBA_001B), 21 July 2026 · p.8, 3.1.7

The site is located just beyond the western edge of the village of Claverdon.

Green Belt Appraisal (ref DE600_GBA_001B), 21 July 2026 · p.3, 1.2.1

Total Combined Footprint 2033.98

Site Areas Schedule (drawing 4257): proposed footprints, volumes and site areas, July 2026 · p.1

Total Combined Volume 10607.09

Site Areas Schedule (drawing 4257): proposed footprints, volumes and site areas, July 2026 · p.1

Total Site Area 19,772

Site Areas Schedule (drawing 4257): proposed footprints, volumes and site areas, July 2026 · p.1

Total Hard Standing 3765.3

Site Areas Schedule (drawing 4257): proposed footprints, volumes and site areas, July 2026 · p.1

1785.94 9557.69 248.04 1049.4 4001.1

Site Areas Schedule (drawing 4257): proposed footprints, volumes and site areas, July 2026 · p.1, totals row: house footprint, house volume, garage footprint, garage volume, rear gardens

Public Open Space (m2) 4503

Site Areas Schedule (drawing 4257): proposed footprints, volumes and site areas, July 2026 · p.1

Panoramic, elevated views of the proposed development would be available from this path

Landscape and Visual Appraisal, main text (ref DE600_LVA_001B), 21 July 2026 · p.23, 6.3.9

The existing site is almost entirely covered by hardstanding and a number of large buildings and other structures

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.4, 2.5 · read from a scanned document

the Highway Authority objects to the planning application

Warwickshire County Council, Highway Authority: consultation response, 28 September 2026 · p.1

The application site is located within a rural and inherently unsustainable location

Warwickshire County Council, Highway Authority: consultation response, 28 September 2026 · p.1

Kington Lane is characterised as a narrow, single-lane rural route with limited opportunity for passing and no associated footway, street lighting or parking restrictions in the vicinity.

Warwickshire County Council, Highway Authority: consultation response, 28 September 2026 · p.1

The site is not located within reasonable walking distance of day-to-day services, facilities or public transport infrastructure. The nearest bus stops and bus services are located approximately 1km from the site, whilst Claverdon Railway Station is approximately 2.5km away. Access to these facilities would require pedestrians to travel along rural roads without the benefit of footways or street lighting.

Warwickshire County Council, Highway Authority: consultation response, 28 September 2026 · p.2

There are no dedicated footways linking the site to local facilities, public transport or services. As a result, pedestrians would be required to walk within the carriageway of Kington Lane, which is unlit and rural in character.

Warwickshire County Council, Highway Authority: consultation response, 28 September 2026 · p.2

This is particularly relevant for vulnerable users, including children, older persons and those travelling during periods of darkness or adverse weather conditions.

Warwickshire County Council, Highway Authority: consultation response, 28 September 2026 · p.2

The footway along Henley road is very narrow at points, for example alongside Bankside Cottage where the speed limit remains 50mph, and does not provide an accessible route into the village. It is well below the 2m standard width and too narrow for a pushchair/buggy to be easily accommodated.

Warwickshire County Council, Highway Authority: consultation response, 28 September 2026 · p.3, Active Travel

This application is not sustainable from an active travel perspective. There are no suitable and accessible pedestrian routes into Claverdon which will lead to a reliance on motor vehicles for short journeys.

Warwickshire County Council, Highway Authority: consultation response, 28 September 2026 · p.3, Active Travel

However, this land has not been identified within either the red-line application boundary or the blue-line ownership plan.

Warwickshire County Council, Highway Authority: consultation response, 28 September 2026 · p.3

Nor is it a public right of way and no permanent access over it can be guaranteed. The surface is rough and not fully accessible. For these reasons it cannot be considered as contributing to active travel access to the development.

Warwickshire County Council, Highway Authority: consultation response, 28 September 2026 · p.4, Active Travel

The bridleway SD340/1 does provide a link into Claverdon, however it is overgrown and its width is uncertain.

Warwickshire County Council, Highway Authority: consultation response, 28 September 2026 · p.3, Active Travel

The developer would need to provide a pair of bus stops with hard standing on Henley Road at the junction with Kington Lane

Warwickshire County Council, Highway Authority: consultation response, 28 September 2026 · p.4, Active Travel

Formal passing/waiting places must be provided.

Warwickshire County Council, Highway Authority: consultation response, 28 September 2026 · p.3, Active Travel

However, planning policy and the emphasis placed upon sustainable travel have evolved, and it is appropriate to consider such matters in the assessment of the current proposal.

Warwickshire County Council, Highway Authority: consultation response, 28 September 2026 · p.2

the proposal is considered contrary to the principles of sustainable development and the requirements of Local Plan Policy TR3, which seeks to locate development where sustainable travel choices are available and realistic

Warwickshire County Council, Highway Authority: consultation response, 28 September 2026 · p.2

Kington Lane is principally an unlit rural lane serving numerous dwellings, agricultural holdings and commercial development. It is single lane width

Transport Appraisal, final (ref 25477-02f), 12 August 2026 · p.5, 4.2.1

It is subject to the national speed limit (60mph)

Transport Appraisal, final (ref 25477-02f), 12 August 2026 · p.5, 4.2.2

An automatic traffic count (ATC) was deployed on Kington Lane between Friday 17th October and Thursday 23rd October 2025.

Transport Appraisal, final (ref 25477-02f), 12 August 2026 · p.6, 4.2.3

Fri 17-Oct-25 Thu 23-Oct-25 1020 161 146 31.4 24.8

Transport Appraisal, final (ref 25477-02f), 12 August 2026 · p.28, Appendix C, north-eastbound week summary

The columns are the week total, the five-day average flow, the seven-day average flow, the 85th percentile speed and the mean speed, in miles per hour. The south-westbound row gives 153, 140, 30.6 and 25.3.

Wed 22-Oct-25 155 32.3

Transport Appraisal, final (ref 25477-02f), 12 August 2026 · p.52, Appendix C, north-eastbound daily speeds

The highest daily 85th percentile speed in the survey week: 32.3 miles per hour.

There is a footway at the junction of Kington Lane and the A4189 Henley Road that connects into the village

Transport Appraisal, final (ref 25477-02f), 12 August 2026 · p.7, 4.3.3

Claverdon is also served by the 510 & 511 bus services Monday-Friday however, these are limited services only serving the village once a day from near to the Church.

Transport Appraisal, final (ref 25477-02f), 12 August 2026 · p.7, 4.3.6

all facilities within the village with the exception of the railway station is within 2km of the site

Transport Appraisal, final (ref 25477-02f), 12 August 2026 · p.7, 4.3.8

As part of the development proposals, a link will be delivered to connect to this pathway across the field to the east of the development

Transport Appraisal, final (ref 25477-02f), 12 August 2026 · p.7, 4.3.2

There is a footpath on this side of Henley Road, connecting the site with the community facilities within the village.

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.5, 4.2 · read from a scanned document

recognising that most families will be reliant on a car for most of their journeys

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.20, 7.18 · read from a scanned document

Bus services can be picked up along Henley Road and from bus stops within the village, but it is recognised that these are limited services.

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.20, 7.17 · read from a scanned document

This is, therefore, not an isolated location within open countryside.

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.6, 4.4 · read from a scanned document

Office and training centre use (Use Class E) is not viable due to the site's rural and isolated location, lack of meaningful public transport connectivity.

Economic Viability Report (continued employment use of the site), May 2026 · p.38, 4.4 · read from a scanned document

The subject site is situated approximately 0.6 miles (1.0 km) from Claverdon village

Economic Viability Report (continued employment use of the site), May 2026 · p.8, 2.1.2 · read from a scanned document

In addition, affordable housing requires closer and more substantial local amenities and transport links, which isn’t the case for commuters who live in the Village.

Affordable Housing Provision Options Report, 10 November 2025 · p.11, section 4

If the proposed path crosses or leads onto land outside of the applicant's control then we also recommend that the applicant obtains the consent of the relevant landowners

Warwickshire County Council, Rights of Way: consultation response, September 2026 · p.1 · read from a scanned document

There is no, realistic, means of accessing services other than by car.

Ward member for Claverdon and Snitterfield: consultation response, 24 September 2026 · p.1 · read from a scanned document

CPC has concluded that, on balance, the site is not in a sustainable location, with particular reference to NPPF Policy TR3

Claverdon Parish Council: consultation response, 24 September 2026 · p.3, 2.3 · read from a scanned document

Based on the analysis of the information submitted the Highway Authority concludes that there would be unacceptable impact to pedestrian safety and therefore recommends that this application is refused.

Warwickshire County Council, Highway Authority: consultation response, 28 September 2026 · p.6, Conclusion

The site benefits from an existing shared vehicular access, which appears capable of providing acceptable visibility in both directions

Warwickshire County Council, Highway Authority: consultation response, 28 September 2026 · p.1

The trips being generated are low and comparable in comparison to the existing business and therefore the wider network will not be impacted by this proposed development with the added benefits of HGVs previously serving the site being removed due to the proposed change of use.

Warwickshire County Council, Highway Authority: consultation response, 28 September 2026 · p.6

The applicant should address the concerns identified below or provide robust evidence and justification where they disagree with the recommendations made.

Warwickshire County Council, Highway Authority: consultation response, 28 September 2026 · p.2

the site generated c54 (27 in and 27 out) vehicle movements per day

Transport Appraisal, final (ref 25477-02f), 12 August 2026 · p.11, 5.5.1

the proposals at worst would generate six vehicle movements in the peak hour and a total of 63 throughout the day

Transport Appraisal, final (ref 25477-02f), 12 August 2026 · p.12, 5.5.6

on average there are 1-2 articulated HGV movements per week

Transport Appraisal, final (ref 25477-02f), 12 August 2026 · p.12, 5.5.3

The development would benefit the surrounding highway network by removing the existing HGV traffic associated to the site and would reduce overall daily traffic figures.

Transport Appraisal, final (ref 25477-02f), 12 August 2026 · p.13, 6.4

there have been no recorded collisions in the submitted search area

Transport Appraisal, final (ref 25477-02f), 12 August 2026 · p.8, 4.4.1

A short section of footway is proposed within the bellmouth access arrangement; however, this does not connect to any existing footway provision on Kington Lane. This could cause uncertainty for pedestrians.

Transport Technical Note 1: replies to the Highway Authority's pre-application advice, 25 August 2026 · p.4, 4.0, the Highway Authority's pre-application comment

the applicant would be willing to provide fair and reasonable financial contributions towards ongoing maintenance and upgrades to the local network

Transport Technical Note 1: replies to the Highway Authority's pre-application advice, 25 August 2026 · p.5, 5.1

the development is to remain private with future residents being aware of the access arrangements to the site

Transport Technical Note 1: replies to the Highway Authority's pre-application advice, 25 August 2026 · p.4, 4.2

these will be retained in their current form

Transport Appraisal, final (ref 25477-02f), 12 August 2026 · p.9, 5.2.2

it will provide an off-site contribution equivalent to 50% affordable housing as part of the proposals, and it will deliver any necessary improvements to local infrastructure along with accessible public green spaces

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.22, 7.23 · read from a scanned document

draft S106 HoTs

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.1, title page · read from a scanned document

S106 signed and planning permission granted

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.41, Appendix 1 · read from a scanned document

An off-site sum towards allotments and equipped childrens' play will be secured by S106 agreement.

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.35, 9.19 · read from a scanned document

PDP recommend that the Applicants and SDC negotiate a viable offsite monetary contribution in lieu of the delivery of onsite affordable housing provision

Affordable Housing Provision Options Report, 10 November 2025 · p.12, section 5

PDP provided a deadline of Wednesday 12th November 2025 for Expressions of Interest

Affordable Housing Provision Options Report, 10 November 2025 · p.9, section 4

The key four reasons provided is that five dwellings is too few units to warrant any interest

Affordable Housing Provision Options Report, 10 November 2025 · p.9, section 4

A pre-application enquiry was submitted to the Council in December 2025

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.5, 3.1 · read from a scanned document

PDP has received a negative response from all 13 Affordable Housing Providers

Affordable Housing Provision Options Report, 10 November 2025 · p.9, section 4

we are satisfied that Claverdon would be a popular location for prospective tenants/purchasers given the scale of development proposed in this case

Stratford-on-Avon District Council, Housing Policy and Development Team: consultation response, 24 September 2026 · p.1, 1.2

only a very limited supply of such housing: 6 homes in total

Stratford-on-Avon District Council, Housing Policy and Development Team: consultation response, 24 September 2026 · p.1, 1.4

we recommend that careful consideration should be given as to whether: (a) on-site affordable housing provision would instead be appropriate, and (b) whether the application of NPPF Policy GB8 would result in a 50% affordable housing requirement

Stratford-on-Avon District Council, Housing Policy and Development Team: consultation response, 24 September 2026 · p.2, 2.9

we recommend that a off-site financial contribution should be sought equating to 50% of the total housing provision proposed: in other words, a contribution equivalent to 5 dwellings

Stratford-on-Avon District Council, Housing Policy and Development Team: consultation response, 24 September 2026 · p.2, 2.10

As this matter will affect the prospects for timely delivery, you will need to take this into account when reaching the necessary overall planning balance on the application.

Stratford-on-Avon District Council, Housing Policy and Development Team: consultation response, 24 September 2026 · p.2, 2.6

Affordable housing requirement 35%

Off-site affordable housing financial contribution calculator, as run for this application, September 2026 · p.1

Gross contribution £274,750.00

Off-site affordable housing financial contribution calculator, as run for this application, September 2026 · p.1

The sheet multiplies 3.5 homes by a base figure of £78,500 for the district outside Stratford-upon-Avon, and says contributions are indexed from 1 April 2017. At the five homes the housing officer recommends, the same base figure gives £392,500 before indexation. That figure is our arithmetic and is not stated in any document on the file.

Rest of District £ 78,500

Off-site affordable housing financial contribution calculator, as run for this application, September 2026 · p.1

The provision of 4,503m2 of public open space (source: Design and Access Statement) exceeds the minimum required (612.51m2) by a significant margin

Stratford-on-Avon District Council, Public Open Space: consultation response, September 2026 · p.3

We have been instructed by the site owner to assess whether the existing lawful use of the Site and other reasonable alternative commercial uses are economically viable

Economic Viability Report (continued employment use of the site), May 2026 · p.5, 1.1.2 · read from a scanned document

the entire site is located within Flood Zone 1

Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, part 1 (revision A1-C02), 21 July 2026 · p.18, 4.2 · read from a scanned document

The site and its access from Kington Lane are at high to low risk of surface water flooding.

Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, part 1 (revision A1-C02), 21 July 2026 · p.19, 4.3.1 · read from a scanned document

Access to the site is provided via Kington Lane, which is modelled to host flood depths of 0.19m.

Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, part 1 (revision A1-C02), 21 July 2026 · p.23, 4.3.2.3 · read from a scanned document

During the design 1%AEP+CC event the junction is predicted to flood with hazard of Danger for Some /Danger for Most category.

Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, part 1 (revision A1-C02), 21 July 2026 · p.28, 5.3 · read from a scanned document

Any flooding of such magnitude would be temporary and thus the access would not be impeded for a long time. Emergency services access would still be possible.

Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, part 1 (revision A1-C02), 21 July 2026 · p.28, 5.3 · read from a scanned document

the LLFA have advised during the consultation meeting that the above would not be a reason for objection to the scheme

Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, part 1 (revision A1-C02), 21 July 2026 · p.28, 5.3 · read from a scanned document

Future site users/ occupiers should however take account of weather forecasts and avoid travelling in particularly wet weather conditions.

Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, part 1 (revision A1-C02), 21 July 2026 · p.44, 8.1 · read from a scanned document

No developable area and no ground level modifications are proposed within the surface water flood risk area

Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, part 1 (revision A1-C02), 21 July 2026 · p.26, 4.3.3 · read from a scanned document

A minimum FFL of 98.01mAOD will satisfy this recommendation.

Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, part 1 (revision A1-C02), 21 July 2026 · p.28, 5.1 · read from a scanned document

It is normally required if any part of the site (including access routes, land raising, or vulnerable uses) lies in an area at risk of flooding.

Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, part 1 (revision A1-C02), 21 July 2026 · p.15, 3.3 · read from a scanned document

The development will be served by a private packaged foul water treatment plant discharging to the watercourse to the south of the site.

Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, part 1 (revision A1-C02), 21 July 2026 · p.8, Executive Summary · read from a scanned document

Whilst the applicant has demonstrated the principles of an acceptable surface water management strategy at the site, further information is still required as detailed above.

Warwickshire County Council, Lead Local Flood Authority: consultation response, 23 September 2026 · p.3

Undertake infiltration testing in accordance with the BRE 365 guidance

Warwickshire County Council, Lead Local Flood Authority: consultation response, 23 September 2026 · p.1, Condition 1

further information should be provided regarding the ownership, purpose, location and condition of this asset along with confirmation of the right to connect into it

Warwickshire County Council, Lead Local Flood Authority: consultation response, 23 September 2026 · p.1, Condition 1

Further ecological information is required, prior to determination, as outlined below:

Warwickshire County Council, Ecology: consultation response, 25 September 2026 · p.3

WCC Ecology are satisfied with the protected species survey effort described in the PEA report and with the general conclusions of the report.

Warwickshire County Council, Ecology: consultation response, 25 September 2026 · p.2

However, the loss of hedgerow H5 is not accounted for in the metric spreadsheet. It is recommended that a revised metric spreadsheet is provided, prior to determination, to accurately account for hedgerow loss.

Warwickshire County Council, Ecology: consultation response, 25 September 2026 · p.2

WCC Ecology are satisfied that the proposed development can likely achieve the statutory 10% BNG in habitat units and watercourse units

Warwickshire County Council, Ecology: consultation response, 25 September 2026 · p.2

No ecological enhancement recommendations have been provided in the PEA report.

Warwickshire County Council, Ecology: consultation response, 25 September 2026 · p.2

Up to four Common Lizards and two juvenile Grass Snakes were recorded

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, including reptile survey (version 6), August 2026 · p.7, Summary · read from a scanned document

Any reptiles trapped will be relocated into the retained natural area at the western end of the site.

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, including reptile survey (version 6), August 2026 · p.31, 4.2 · read from a scanned document

This confirms a gain of 57.47% in habitat units, an 11.55% gain in hedgerow units, and a 12.0% gain in watercourse units.

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, including reptile survey (version 6), August 2026 · p.34, 4.4 · read from a scanned document

13% increase in hedgerow units

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.34, 9.11 · read from a scanned document

The biodiversity net gains, which are substantially more than the required 10%, should be given moderate weight in support of the application.

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.37, 10.8 · read from a scanned document

To implement the new proposed plot garden fence boundaries, there will be a requirement to remove a low-quality C category group, G4.

Arboricultural Impact Assessment (ref 260527 2169 AIA V1a), 22 July 2026 · p.13, 6.6.5 · read from a scanned document

This balance has secured the retention of all moderate and high value individual trees across the Site

Arboricultural Impact Assessment (ref 260527 2169 AIA V1a), 22 July 2026 · p.20, 8.1.9 · read from a scanned document

there is insufficient information relating to below ground infrastructure available at present

Arboricultural Impact Assessment (ref 260527 2169 AIA V1a), 22 July 2026 · p.15, 6.7.16 · read from a scanned document

there are no TPOs charged on the land and the Site does not sit within a Conservation Area

Arboricultural Impact Assessment (ref 260527 2169 AIA V1a), 22 July 2026 · p.8, 4.1.2 · read from a scanned document

The Site was absent of these non-statutory designations.

Arboricultural Impact Assessment (ref 260527 2169 AIA V1a), 22 July 2026 · p.8, 4.1.7 · read from a scanned document

>40 years A1 707 15.0

Arboricultural Impact Assessment (ref 260527 2169 AIA V1a), 22 July 2026 · p.34, tree schedule, row T20 · read from a scanned document

Row T20 of the tree schedule, read by eye from the page image because the table did not survive text recognition: common ash, height 18 metres, stem diameter 1,250 millimetres, age class "Vet", physiological condition fair, structural condition poor, estimated remaining contribution over 40 years, category A1, root protection area 707 square metres, radius 15.0 metres. The notes end "High habitat potential".

Fifteen times the diameter of its stem or 5m from the edge of its canopy

Arboricultural Impact Assessment (ref 260527 2169 AIA V1a), 22 July 2026 · p.27, survey method notes · read from a scanned document

Where veteran trees have been identified the RPA has been calculated in accordance with Natural England guidance

Arboricultural Impact Assessment (ref 260527 2169 AIA V1a), 22 July 2026 · p.29, notes to the tree schedule · read from a scanned document

It has been determined that c. 20-30 m of the understory within G8 will require a level of pruning to facilitate the proposed visibility splay and achieve the necessary visibility requirements.

Arboricultural technical note on the highway visibility splays, 4 September 2026 · p.2

It is recommended that T23, an early mature common ash, is removed on health and safety grounds.

Arboricultural technical note on the highway visibility splays, 4 September 2026 · p.2

No vegetation would be removed as a result of the proposed development, save for an ornamental hedgerow adjoining the western section of the access road to the development.

Green Belt Appraisal (ref DE600_GBA_001B), 21 July 2026 · p.9, 3.1.8

the site itself is not considered to be a valued landscape (as defined in the NPPF and TGN02/21) but is considered to be located within a valued landscape due it being located in the Arden SLA

Landscape and Visual Appraisal, main text (ref DE600_LVA_001B), 21 July 2026 · p.12, 3.9.4

the Proposed Development is accordingly appraised to have a moderate to minor and neutral overall effect on this receptor at completion (year 1) and at year 15

Landscape and Visual Appraisal, main text (ref DE600_LVA_001B), 21 July 2026 · p.18, 5.4.3

The proposed development would be visible in views B2 and B4 within valued landscape B as defined in the CNP. However, the proposed development would not materially alter the characteristics or qualities of these views.

Landscape and Visual Appraisal, main text (ref DE600_LVA_001B), 21 July 2026 · p.28, 7.5.2

There are no listed assets within the site or its immediate surroundings. There is a listed building (Fox Hill) located along Henley Road, circa 475m north east of the site.

Landscape and Visual Appraisal, main text (ref DE600_LVA_001B), 21 July 2026 · p.10, 3.6.2

the officer commented on the cul-de-sac layout which was considered quite domestic and suburban for a rural location, whilst the scale of the proposed dwellings also raised concern, noting the high number of 2 storey, 5-bedroom dwellings

Design and Access Statement, part 3, 23 July 2026 · p.5

The Suburban style development proposed is an unwelcome departure from the current evolution of the hamlet and is outside the village BUAB, in green belt, in an Arden Special Landscape area.

Ward member for Claverdon and Snitterfield: consultation response, 24 September 2026 · p.1 · read from a scanned document

All development proposals must demonstrate how the Village Design Statement (VDS), presented in Appendix 1, has been taken into account in the design.

Claverdon Neighbourhood Plan 2011 to 2031, made version, with the Village Design Statement at Appendix 1, December 2019 · p.29, Policy BE1

the fringes of Claverdon Parish consist of scattered housing such as Kington Lane, Gannaway, around Lye Green, etc.

Claverdon Neighbourhood Plan 2011 to 2031, made version, with the Village Design Statement at Appendix 1, December 2019 · p.36, Village Design Statement, settlement pattern

higher density development on the edges of the village should be avoided

Claverdon Neighbourhood Plan 2011 to 2031, made version, with the Village Design Statement at Appendix 1, December 2019 · p.36, Village Design Statement, settlement guidelines

Discourage street lighting

Claverdon Neighbourhood Plan 2011 to 2031, made version, with the Village Design Statement at Appendix 1, December 2019 · p.40, Village Design Statement, highways and streetscape guidelines

the remains of the defensive earth works of a small Iron Age hill fort survive

Claverdon Neighbourhood Plan 2011 to 2031, made version, with the Village Design Statement at Appendix 1, December 2019 · p.35, Village Design Statement

The use would not conflict with any of the purposes of including land within the Green Belt or represent inappropriate development within the Green Belt

Claverdon Neighbourhood Plan 2011 to 2031, made version, with the Village Design Statement at Appendix 1, December 2019 · p.12, Policy H3

The redevelopment of brownfield land to create new housing will be supported subject to the following criteria

Claverdon Neighbourhood Plan 2011 to 2031, made version, with the Village Design Statement at Appendix 1, December 2019 · p.12, Policy H3

Development of the site for other appropriate uses will facilitate the relocation of an existing business to a more suitable site

Claverdon Neighbourhood Plan 2011 to 2031, made version, with the Village Design Statement at Appendix 1, December 2019 · p.14, Policy E1

Outside the Village Boundary policy is now inconsistent with NPPF, Policy GB7 and should now be given Very Limited planning weight.

Claverdon Parish Council: consultation response, 24 September 2026 · p.1, 1.1 · read from a scanned document

CPC considers that, on balance, this proposed development does not comply with NDP Policy E1 nor Core Strategy CS.22

Claverdon Parish Council: consultation response, 24 September 2026 · p.2, 1.4 · read from a scanned document

The Greenfingers business is actively looking for an opportunity to re-locate the business to a larger site

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.4, 2.6 · read from a scanned document

the business employs six full-time and one part-time members of staff

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.25, 8.4 · read from a scanned document

with the vendor being open to all offers being considered

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.27, 8.13 · read from a scanned document

it was agreed to make clear to interested parties that the ongoing business was not for sale and that offers to redevelop the site for residential purposes would not be accepted

Marketing Report, July 2026 · p.3, 4.1

Wanted to buy the Business

Marketing Report, July 2026 · p.10, Appendix B, enquiry log

it is acknowledged that these proposals do not entirely meet with this mix

Planning Statement, 23 July 2026 · p.33, 9.8 · read from a scanned document

This policy does not apply to development proposals in the Green Belt or on land designated as Local Green Space

National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, 17 August 2026 · S5(5)

proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects

National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, 17 August 2026 · S5(5)

fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances

National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, 17 August 2026 · S5(2)

Development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it falls within one of the categories in policy GB7.

National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, 17 August 2026 · GB6(1)

is clearly outweighed by other considerations

National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, 17 August 2026 · GB6(2)

The redevelopment of previously developed land (including a material change of use to residential or mixed-use including residential), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt

National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, 17 August 2026 · GB7(1)(e)

The development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to policy TR3 of this Framework

National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, 17 August 2026 · GB7(1)(g)(iii)

all of the following contributions (‘Golden Rules’) should be made

National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, 17 August 2026 · GB8(1)

Necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure

National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, 17 August 2026 · GB8(1)(b)

substantial weight should be given to the importance of complying with the Golden Rules

National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, 17 August 2026 · GB8(2)

This should be provided on-site unless

National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, 17 August 2026 · HO8(1)

Land which has been lawfully developed and is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any fixed surface infrastructure associated with it

National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, 17 August 2026 · Annex B, "Previously developed land"

Previously developed land excludes: land that is or was last occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings

National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, 17 August 2026 · Annex B, "Previously developed land"

does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in policy GB2

National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, 17 August 2026 · Annex B, "Grey belt"

This means the location should limit the need to travel, particularly by private car, and offer a genuine choice of transport modes for residents and users

National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, 17 August 2026 · TR3(1)(a)

or which can be made so, taking into account planned improvements, including any provided for as part of the development itself

National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, 17 August 2026 · TR3(1)(a)

In rural areas, opportunities to improve walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport and enhance the connectivity of an area should be taken where they exist and can be supported by the development proposed.

National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, 17 August 2026 · TR3(1)(e)

should be used alongside other relevant quantitative or qualitative evidence in assessing the connectivity of particular locations proposed for development

National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, 17 August 2026 · TR3(2)

or an unacceptable impact on highway safety

National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, 17 August 2026 · TR6(4)

Any efficient, safe and accessible means of transport with overall low impact on the environment, including walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport.

National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, 17 August 2026 · Annex B, "Sustainable transport modes"

Where development is proposed in a location known to be at risk from any form of flooding, now or in the future, it should be refused unless

National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, 17 August 2026 · F7(2)

Any residual risk can be safely managed, and safe access and escape routes are included where appropriate, as part of an agreed emergency plan

National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, 17 August 2026 · F7(2)(c)

No built development within the site boundary, including access or escape routes, land raising or other potentially vulnerable elements, would be located on an area that would be at risk of flooding from any source

National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, 17 August 2026 · F5(2)(b)(i)

Development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1 of this policy or relevant aspects of the principles in paragraph 2

National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, 17 August 2026 · DP3(3)

substantial weight should be given to the benefits of providing homes

National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, 17 August 2026 · HO7(1)

The neighbourhood plan became part of the development plan five years or less before the date on which the decision is made

National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, 17 August 2026 · S6(1)(a)

buildings have a volume of between 6,130m3 - 7,270m3, a footprint of around 1,780m2 and heights of 2.9m up to 5.6m

Appeal decision 6011972, Wire Mill Lane, Newchapel, Surrey (eight houses on an equestrian site), 18 September 2026 · paragraph 7

The houses would have a volume of 6,260m3 a footprint of around 990m2 – 1,090m2 and a height of up to 8.6m.

Appeal decision 6011972, Wire Mill Lane, Newchapel, Surrey (eight houses on an equestrian site), 18 September 2026 · paragraph 8

although the number of buildings and volume would reduce, the proposed dwellings would be taller, bulkier and more conspicuous

Appeal decision 6011972, Wire Mill Lane, Newchapel, Surrey (eight houses on an equestrian site), 18 September 2026 · paragraph 9

The separate residential curtilages would also result in the introduction of domestic paraphernalia for multiple households as well as hardstanding for an access road and driveways which would further impact on openness.

Appeal decision 6011972, Wire Mill Lane, Newchapel, Surrey (eight houses on an equestrian site), 18 September 2026 · paragraph 9

there would be harm to spatial and visual openness and taken together the harm would be substantial

Appeal decision 6011972, Wire Mill Lane, Newchapel, Surrey (eight houses on an equestrian site), 18 September 2026 · paragraph 9

a narrow rural road with no lighting or pavements

Appeal decision 6011972, Wire Mill Lane, Newchapel, Surrey (eight houses on an equestrian site), 18 September 2026 · paragraph 12

The appellant states that there would be a reduction in the number of vehicle movements to and from the site. Nevertheless, the new occupants would not be in a location that would limit the need to travel, particularly by private car, or offer a genuine choice of transport modes for residents and users.

Appeal decision 6011972, Wire Mill Lane, Newchapel, Surrey (eight houses on an equestrian site), 18 September 2026 · paragraph 14

even taking into account the existing situation, this would not promote sustainable transport modes or be a sustainable location for the proposed residential development

Appeal decision 6011972, Wire Mill Lane, Newchapel, Surrey (eight houses on an equestrian site), 18 September 2026 · paragraph 14

Overall, the benefits would be moderate in this case.

Appeal decision 6011972, Wire Mill Lane, Newchapel, Surrey (eight houses on an equestrian site), 18 September 2026 · paragraph 16

It is logical to require that all of the appeal site must be PDL to qualify for the exception set out under Policy GB7e of the Framework, and that requirement is not met.

Appeal decision 6011330, Cowley Lane, Dronfield, Derbyshire (one house replacing equestrian buildings), 15 September 2026 · paragraph 9

necessary local highway infrastructure improvements have not been suitably identified, substantiated, or secured. This conclusion aligns with the position of the Highway Authority, which considers the mitigation measures proposed by the appellant to be inadequate.

Appeal decision 6006637, Hatton Station, Warwick (28 affordable homes), 23 September 2026 · paragraph 44

notwithstanding the appellant’s willingness to fund certain improvements, it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that necessary improvements to local infrastructure would be delivered

Appeal decision 6006637, Hatton Station, Warwick (28 affordable homes), 23 September 2026 · paragraph 44

the access route could flood to a maximum of 0.68m

Appeal decision 6010729, Roche Road, St Austell, Cornwall (holiday accommodation with a flood-prone access), 8 September 2026 · paragraph 17

in the absence of a robust formal emergency plan, I cannot be sure that future occupants would be safe during a flood event

Appeal decision 6010729, Roche Road, St Austell, Cornwall (holiday accommodation with a flood-prone access), 8 September 2026 · paragraph 19

the absence of harm would be a neutral matter which would not carry weight in favour of the scheme

Appeal decision 6010313, Brickhouse Lane, Newchapel, Surrey (five houses), 4 September 2026 · paragraph 36