Which Claverdon Neighbourhood Plan policies keep their weight under the 2026 NPPF

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, Policy BE1 (p.29)

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, or with any explicit design standards set out in the development plan (including those in locally-specific policies, guides, codes or masterplans).

NPPF, DP3(3)

The Framework does more than tolerate local design policies: DP3(3) builds them in. The Council has treated village design policies as consistent: at Snitterfield "both the Core Strategy and the Neighbourhood Development Plan Policies, and the policies contained therein, are materially consistent with the requirements of the NPPF" (Snitterfield, 26/00617/PIP, p.13), and at Tanworth-in-Arden it weighed a conflict with that plan's BE1 against the scheme (Tanworth-in-Arden, 26/00918/PIP, p.20).

Proposals that will have a significant adverse impact on the valued landscapes and views identified on Figure 3, where seen from locations to which the general public have free and unrestricted access, will not be supported.

Claverdon Neighbourhood Plan, Policy NE1 (p.19)

Set out the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites and areas of importance for their landscape, geodiversity or biodiversity value in the plan area

NPPF, N1(1)(a), on what development plans should do

Consider the environmental qualities of land proposed for development, including habitats, landscape character and the natural beauty of the countryside, and identify opportunities for those qualities to be conserved or enhanced (including through requirements for biodiversity net gain where these apply);

NPPF, N2(1)(a)

The Framework expects plans to identify locally important landscapes (N1), and asks proposals to conserve or enhance landscape character (N2(1)(a)) and respond to their setting (DP3(1)). NE1 does both for specific, mapped views. The Framework no longer uses the phrase "valued landscapes", but its silence on a label is not an inconsistency. The Council itself treats a stricter landscape policy as consistent: Core Strategy CS.12 protects Special Landscape Areas "by resisting development proposals that would have a harmful effect on their distinctive character and appearance", and the Council's report calls CS.12 materially consistent (Stratford-upon-Avon, 26/01141/FUL, p.9). NE1 is narrower: it bites only on "significant" harm, to mapped views, seen from public places.

Development proposals will be supported where they utilise sustainable drainage systems, including those that achieve landscape or biodiversity enhancement, and demonstrate they will not result in on-site or off-site flooding.

Claverdon Neighbourhood Plan, Policy NE2 (p.24)

Development proposals should not present a risk from flooding to potential occupiers, users, or visitors, and should not increase flood risk elsewhere.

NPPF, F7(1)

Flood Risk and Drainage Policy CS.4 of the Core Strategy and Policy IN2 of the Snitterfield NDP are materially consistent with the NPPF

Snitterfield, 26/00617/PIP, officer report p.17

To be supported, development proposals must not harm biodiversity and must provide net gains for biodiversity unless it can be demonstrated this is not possible or is not viable.

Claverdon Neighbourhood Plan, Policy NE5 (p.28)

Consider the environmental qualities of land proposed for development, including habitats, landscape character and the natural beauty of the countryside, and identify opportunities for those qualities to be conserved or enhanced (including through requirements for biodiversity net gain where these apply);

NPPF, N2(1)(a)

Net gain and new hedge and tree planting match the Framework (N2, N3 and DP3(2)(c)). "Must not harm biodiversity" is stricter than N2's wording, so that phrase may be read down. The Council has held village ecology policies consistent: at Snitterfield, "Policies NE1 and NE2 of the Snitterfield NDP are materially consistent with the relevant biodiversity and ecological protection requirements of the Framework" (Snitterfield, 26/00617/PIP, p.18).

This Plan designates the following areas of Local Green Space as defined on Figure 4 where development will be ruled out other than in very special circumstances

Claverdon Neighbourhood Plan, Policy NE4 (p.25)

Development proposals for land which has been designated as Local Green Space should be determined in a manner consistent with the relevant national decision-making policies for land in the Green Belt, excluding provisions relating to grey belt and previously developed land.

NPPF, HC8(1)

The loss or partial loss of existing community facilities will be not be supported unless it can be demonstrated that the facility is no longer in active use and has no prospect of being brought back into use or is to be replaced by a new facility of at least an equivalent standard in no less convenient location for users.

Claverdon Neighbourhood Plan, Policy CSL1 (p.31)

Development proposals should not result in the loss of key community facilities and public service infrastructure unless:

NPPF, HC6(1)

The tests match HC6(1)(a) and (b). HC6 adds a third route, where there is enough alternative provision locally, which CSL1 does not mention.

Proposals resulting in loss of open space, sports and recreational buildings and land including playing fields will only be supported if it is demonstrated they are surplus to requirements or they will be replaced by equivalent or better provision in no less convenient location to users.

Claverdon Neighbourhood Plan, Policy CSL2 (p.32)

Development proposals should not result in the loss of existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, other formal and informal play space and allotments, unless:

NPPF, HC7(1)

Small-scale community-led housing schemes on sites beyond, but reasonably adjacent to, the defined Village Boundary of Claverdon or the part of the built-up area of Norton Lindsey within the Neighbourhood Area, will be supported where all the following criteria are satisfied

Claverdon Neighbourhood Plan, Policy H2 (p.11)

A rural exception site (as defined in the glossary at Annex B) that will provide affordable housing to meet identified local needs – as evidenced through a local housing needs survey or secondary data which is no more than five years old; or

NPPF, HO10(1)(a)

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

Claverdon Neighbourhood Plan, Policy H3 (p.12)

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;

NPPF, GB7(1)(e)

H3 supports what the Framework supports, with criteria on compatibility, contamination, character and the Green Belt. Policies called H3 in other villages' plans (Tanworth-in-Arden, for example) are housing-boundary policies and are treated differently; Claverdon's is not.

The development of new local employment opportunities will be supported providing they:

Claverdon Neighbourhood Plan, Policy E2 (p.16)

In applying policy E2, the sustainable growth of businesses in rural areas should be supported, including through:

NPPF, E4(1)

Both policies support rural business and home working, subject to amenity and Green Belt policy, as the Framework does.

New or enhanced telecommunications development will be supported subject to the following factors:

Claverdon Neighbourhood Plan, Policy E5 (p.17)

In considering proposals for the expansion or upgrading of electronic telecommunications networks, substantial weight should be given to the benefits of maintaining or improving network coverage, capacity, reliability and resilience, including where significant improvements are required such as along rail corridors.

NPPF, CO1(1)

E5's factors (mast sharing, siting, emissions guidelines and interference) are the matters CO1(1)(a) to (d) list.

Most of BE2 matches the Framework: it requires an assessment of harm to significance (HE5(1)), and it weighs harm against public benefits:

Proposals which lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset will be considered against the public benefits of the proposal including securing the optimum viable use of the heritage asset.

Claverdon Neighbourhood Plan, Policy BE2 (p.30)

Where a development proposal would harm the significance of a designated heritage asset the effect on the asset and its significance should be weighed against any public benefits resulting from the proposal.

NPPF, HE6(4)

One sentence goes further than the Framework, which weighs harm against benefits (HE6(4)) and asks conservation-area proposals to "Retain and conserve" positive features "where possible" (HE9(1)(a)):

Development which fails to conserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Areas will not be supported.

Claverdon Neighbourhood Plan, Policy BE2 (p.30)

The Council has also downgraded heritage policies in other villages' plans, on the ground that HE5 sets new assessment criteria:

I consider that CS.8 and HA.1 are materially inconsistent with the NDMPs of the Framework.

Ilmington, 26/01399/PIP, officer report p.5

That reasoning does not hold for BE2's weighing sentence, which applies the same test as HE6(4) under an older label. The outright Conservation Area sentence is the part most at risk.

Development on garden land within the defined Village Boundary, as defined on Figure 1, will only be supported if it can be demonstrated that proposals: a) Preserve or enhance the character of its surroundings; b) Will not introduce a form of development which is at odds with the existing settlement character or pattern;

Claverdon Neighbourhood Plan, Policy H4 (p.13)

Creating additional homes or floorspace within settlements by using the airspace above existing residential and commercial premises, or through sensitive redevelopment or additional development within existing plots

NPPF, L2(1)(d)

H4's criteria on character, amenity and access echo L2(1)(d)(i) and (ii). But L2 gives such schemes substantial weight "within settlements", and Annex B excludes villages washed over by the Green Belt from "settlements", so how L2 applies in Claverdon is itself unsettled.

Proposals for the change of use or redevelopment of land or premises identified for or currently in employment use will only be supported where:

Claverdon Neighbourhood Plan, Policy E1 (p.14)

The Framework's decision-making policies support business growth (E2, E4) but contain no matching protection for existing employment land. E1 has not been tested.

Development proposals relating to the production of renewable energy will be supported where there are no significant adverse landscape or other visual impacts.

Claverdon Neighbourhood Plan, Policy NE3 (p.24)

In considering proposals for renewable and low-carbon energy development and electricity network infrastructure, substantial weight should be given to:

NPPF, W3(1)

Both support renewable energy. The Framework weighs its benefits; NE3 makes support conditional on no significant landscape or visual harm, which a decision-maker may treat as a weighing rather than a bar.

Proposals for new housing will not be supported outside the Village Boundary except development in accordance with Policy H2; or under the special circumstances set out in Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), and subject to Green Belt policy.

Claverdon Neighbourhood Plan, Policy H1 (p.8)

The Framework allows some housing outside settlements and, in the Green Belt, on grey belt land (S5(1)(j), GB7(1)(g)), so a blanket boundary restriction is likely to be held materially inconsistent. H1 also refers to the 2012 Framework. The Council has given village housing-boundary policies very limited weight in every report that rates them:

Accordingly, I afford NDP Policy H1 very limited weight in the determination of this application.

Snitterfield, 26/00617/PIP, officer report p.9

Accordingly, I afford NDP Policy H3 very limited weight in the determination of this application.

Tanworth-in-Arden, 26/00918/PIP, officer report p.8

This matters less than it seems. In the Green Belt the test is GB6 and GB7, which apply directly. See the Station Road Decision Route.