26/01470/FUL · Stratford-on-Avon District Council

Land North of Station Road, Claverdon: which test applies?

How the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) routes this application, where it fails, and a set of answers to load into the NPPF 2026 Navigator.

5 detached open-market homes0.48 ha fieldGreen Belt (washed-over village)Next to Grade II listed Claverdon Hall

The route in one line

This is a Green Belt site, so policy S5 does not decide it (S5(5)). The test is GB6 and GB7. The only GB7 route open is GB7(1)(g), and the scheme fails its sustainable-location limb (TR3). It is therefore inappropriate development, to be refused unless very special circumstances clearly outweigh the harm (GB6(2)).

Why S5 sends it to GB6 and GB7

S5 is the Framework's policy for development outside settlements. Its list of acceptable categories includes S5(1)(j): housing that meets an evidenced unmet need and is "physically well-related to an existing settlement". That test cannot be applied to this site, for three independent reasons.

1S5 does not apply in the Green Belt

This policy does not apply to development proposals in the Green Belt or on land designated as Local Green Space, which should instead be determined in accordance with policies HC8, GB6, GB7 and/or GB8 (as appropriate).
S5(5)

Claverdon is washed over by the Green Belt: the whole village, inside and outside its built-up area boundary, lies within it. So the S5(1) list, including (j), is never the test here. This holds whether the scheme passes or fails GB7. Passing GB7 brings back only the S5(5) balance, never the S5(1) list. The emerging South Warwickshire Local Plan proposes to take Claverdon out of the Green Belt (policy DS.13), with the new boundary drawn round the built-up village. That plan has not yet been examined, so it carries limited weight, and the site lies outside the built-up area either way.

2A washed-over village is not a "settlement"

For the purpose of this Framework they also exclude villages which lie within and are defined as part of the Green Belt in the development plan.
Annex B, "Settlement"

Even read on its own terms, S5(1)(j) would have no "existing settlement" here for the site to be well-related to. Claverdon is still a Category 3 Local Service Village in the Core Strategy (CS.15). That is the local plan's label. The Annex B exclusion applies only "for the purpose of this Framework". The village's shop, surgery and school still count, as facts about the location under TR3.

3GB6(1) requires the GB7 test in any case

Development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it falls within one of the categories in policy GB7.
GB6(1)

This applies whatever view is taken of S5. Even the decisions that wrongly cited an S5(1) category for a Green Belt site also found the scheme passed GB7 before approving or weighing it. This site fails GB7(1)(g)(iii), so S5(1)(j) cannot save it.

Any one of these is enough. Together they leave no route to S5(1)(j).

The route, step by step

1
Is the site in the Green Belt?
Yes. Claverdon is washed over, so S5(5) sends the proposal to GB6 to GB8.
2
Is it inappropriate development? (GB6(1))
It is, "unless it falls within one of the categories in policy GB7".
3
Which GB7 category could apply?
Only (g), the grey belt route. (c) limited infilling does not fit: the site is open parkland outside the village boundary in the Neighbourhood Plan (Figure 2, p.10), as the applicant's Planning Statement accepts (§1.2, §2.2), not a gap in a built-up frontage. Nor do (e) previously developed land or (h) land around a station.
4
Are all four limbs of GB7(1)(g) met?
No. Limb (iii), a sustainable location with particular reference to TR3, fails.
5
Result
Inappropriate development. GB6(2) applies: very special circumstances must clearly outweigh the harm.

This site: fails GB7

GB6(2): very special circumstances

Inappropriate development "should not be approved except in very special circumstances". Those "will not exist unless" the harm "is clearly outweighed by other considerations", with "substantial weight" given to harm to the Green Belt. The applicant must show the benefits clearly win.

Only if GB7 were passed

S5(5): approve unless substantially outweighed

Approve "unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects", applying S5(2). Here objectors must show that the harm substantially outweighs the benefits, unless a "should be refused" policy is failed.

So whether the location passes TR3 decides which of these two balances applies, and on which side the burden falls.

The GB7(1)(g) gateway

Development on grey belt land is "not inappropriate" only where all four limbs apply. Grey belt status describes the land. It does not make the scheme acceptable, and it does not answer limb (iii).

Limb	Test	This site
(i)	Grey belt land, and the development "would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan"	Probably met Grey belt turns on purposes (a), (b) and (d): large built-up areas, towns merging and historic towns. Those are not about villages.
(ii)	An evidenced unmet need	Met No five-year housing land supply (2.21 years at 31 March 2025).
(iii)	"A sustainable location, with particular reference to policy TR3"	Not met See the evidence below.
(iv)	Golden Rules (GB8) for major housing	Not engaged Five homes on under 0.5 ha is not major development.

Why the location fails TR3

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.
TR3(1)(a)

Walking. There is no footway on the site side, and the frontage is unlit. Residents would cross Station Road to reach the footway on the south side. That footway is no wider than about 1 m anywhere, and 0.55 to 0.70 m wide for around half of the 1.4 km to the station, too narrow for a wheelchair or pushchair to pass another person. It stops for 60 m by the hall, shop and surgery, and ends 20 m short of the station ramp with no dropped kerb (footway survey, 22 September 2026). The limit is 30 mph at the site and rises to 40 mph from about 0.55 km east, toward the station.
Speeds. The applicant's own survey, appended to its Transport Appraisal, records an eastbound 85th-percentile speed of 39.9 mph in the 30 mph limit at the site.
Lighting at the crossing. The road safety audit review found the proposed crossing point "within an environment without street lighting", where motorists "may fail to identify pedestrians", and recommended lighting "to remove the dark spot". The ecology advice requires the boundary hedgerows to be "not illuminated (as far as possible)". No document reconciles the two.
Bus. On the operators' registered timetables, Claverdon has one bus on a Monday morning (the 513) and one return journey on a Wednesday (the 510 Flexibus). The only other weekday bus is a closed-door school service.
Rail. Claverdon station is about 1.4 km away on foot, reached along the 40 mph stretch. It has roughly one train every two hours on weekdays and none on Sundays. Annex B treats around 800 m as a reasonable walk, and a "well-connected station" needs at least four trains an hour, or two an hour in one direction.
The Government's Connectivity Tool, which TR3(2) says "should be used alongside other relevant quantitative or qualitative evidence", puts the site's grid square in the lowest ten per cent nationally for access by walking (score 23) and by public transport (24). For access to workplaces, walking scores 20 and public transport 28, against 81 by car.

The part-time volunteer shop, a branch surgery (about 0.43 km) and the primary school (about 0.67 km) are within walking distance, across the road. Work, secondary school, supermarket shopping, most healthcare and any Sunday journey would be by car. That is not a genuine choice of transport modes.

What the Highway Authority said

Warwickshire County Council Highways wrote on 17 July that "The site is situated within reasonable walking distance of a range of local amenities, a bus service, albeit limited in frequency, and a railway station." That is a description in a highway consultation, not the TR3 judgement, which belongs to the local planning authority. The same letter records that "A pedestrian footway is present on the opposite side of the carriageway" and that there is "no existing street lighting within the vicinity" of the site. Its no-objection is about the access and the road network (TR3(1)(c) and TR6). It does not weigh the route, the bus timetable or the Connectivity Tool.

The Council's earlier Claverdon decisions

In June 2026 the Council's report on 26/00892/PIP, about 220 m east on Station Road, accepted that the lack of a footway and lighting on the north side "is not uncommon in a rural context", and found the site "not in an unsustainable location in respect of paragraph 155(c) of the NPPF". The March 2026 permission in principle at Breach Lane (25/03084/PIP) was found "not in an unsustainable location" in the same terms. Both were decided under the December 2024 Framework. TR3 asks a different and more specific question: whether the location offers "a genuine choice of transport modes", judged with the Connectivity Tool. Neither report used the tool or measured the route. The Breach Lane site also had a public right of way leading to a pavement into the village centre.

The June report itself found the rail service runs "at a limited frequency outside peak periods". And the 2022 report on Claverdon Hall Farm (22/01896/FUL), about 540 m to the north at Lye Green, called that site "an unsustainable location" where "future occupants would be principally reliant on the motor vehicle". That scheme was granted, but on a fallback of existing barn conversions, not on its location.

Small schemes are not exempt

GB7(1)(g)(iii) requires a sustainable location whatever the size of the scheme. Inspectors have also found that five homes can be "a significant amount of movement" for TR3(1)(a) in context. At Bournheath (6011301 ¶10), "set against the size of Bournheath up to 5 dwellings would be a significant amount of movement". At South Nutfield (6009966 ¶27), five homes did not engage TR3(1)(a) to the same degree, but "Policy TR3 must be read as a whole", and the location still failed for want of "a genuine choice of transport modes". At Newchapel (6010313 ¶13), where there were very few homes nearby, five dwellings "would generate a significant amount of movement in this context". All three were dismissed.

If residents already walk the route

At Hatton Station (6006637 ¶26), the inspector found that where there is no alternative, "at least some journeys arise out of necessity rather than choice", so "the recorded levels of activity do not demonstrate that the route is universally perceived as safe".

What has to be outweighed

Under GB6(2), substantial Green Belt harm is joined by every other harm:

Heritage. The applicant's heritage statement concedes harm to Grade II listed Claverdon Hall and to the Conservation Area, which lies immediately to the south across Station Road, and puts it at the low end. HE6(3): "Any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight, which should be dealt with in accordance with paragraphs 4 to 6 of this policy." The Council had not consulted its Conservation Officer when the portal was checked on 20 September 2026, although HE5(4) requires the decision-maker to "be satisfied that assessments accurately reflect the effects". The district's Landscape Sensitivity Assessment found this parkland "not considered suitable for housing development" because of "its historic parkland associations and integration with the Conservation Area".
Design and character. Five detached houses across the parkland frontage do not respond to their setting. The Village Design Statement, Appendix 1 of the Claverdon Neighbourhood Plan (p.37), says "Distant views from Claverdon's hilltop should be preserved as should the present open spaces" and "Hedgerow trees are an important landscape feature". In June 2026 the Council refused 26/00892/PIP, about 220 m east on Station Road, as "an incongruous form of development that fails to respect the established settlement pattern along Station Road".
Trees and hedgerow. The visibility splays must be kept free of anything over 0.6 m, and the applicant's response to the road safety audit says "All necessary vegetation will be removed". That may require the frontage hedgerow and its trees to be removed or kept low. None of the ecological or landscape assessments covers it.
Flood risk. The applicant's own Ground Investigation Report says "parts of the site may be subject to groundwater flooding at surface". No flood risk assessment or drainage document addresses that risk. Where a location is known to be at risk, F7(2) says development "should be refused unless" five matters are shown.

Against this, the only very special circumstance advanced is the housing shortfall, and five open-market homes are a modest contribution to it. Even in the alternative S5(5) balance, DP3(3) on design is a "should be refused" policy, and so is F7(2) if the groundwater risk is treated as known. Under S5(2), failing such a policy makes it likely that the benefits are substantially outweighed.

Answers to the likely arguments

If it is said that…	The answer
It meets S5(1)(j): unmet need, well-related to the village	S5 does not apply in the Green Belt (S5(5)), and a washed-over village is not a "settlement" (Annex B).
It is grey belt, so acceptable in principle	Grey belt is only limb (i) of four. Limb (iii) fails.
It adjoins the village, so it is sustainable	TR3 tests the actual route, services and transport, not being next to a village or its boundary.
Highways raise no objection, and say the site is within walking distance of amenities	That is a highway consultation on the access (TR3(1)(c), TR6). The TR3(1)(a) judgement is the Council's, and needs the route, the timetable and the Connectivity Tool.
The Council accepted Station Road and Breach Lane as sustainable	Both applied the old §155(c) test and found the sites "not in an unsustainable location". TR3 asks whether there is "a genuine choice of transport modes", using the Connectivity Tool, which neither report did.
The crossing and lighting make it sustainable	TR3(1)(a) counts improvements the development provides, but the crossing lighting conflicts with the ecology advice to keep the hedgerows dark, and the footway pinch points toward the station are not part of the scheme.
Five homes is too few to matter	GB7(1)(g)(iii) needs a sustainable location whatever the scale. Five homes were significant movement at Bournheath (6011301 ¶10), and at South Nutfield (6009966 ¶27) "Policy TR3 must be read as a whole".
It is limited infilling in a village (GB7(1)(c))	The applicant says the site "is read as part of the village", but accepts it is outside the built-up area boundary (Planning Statement §1.2), which is the village boundary in the Neighbourhood Plan (Figure 2). On the ground it is open parkland, not a gap in a built-up frontage.
The housing shortfall outweighs the harm	It must clearly outweigh substantial Green Belt harm plus all other harm. Five homes carry modest weight (6010313).

Run it in the Navigator

The NPPF 2026 Navigator walks through the Framework's decision route question by question and shows the appeal decisions behind each step. This set of answers reproduces the route above for this site. Load it, then change any answer you see differently.

Copy the answers below.
Open the NPPF 2026 Navigator.
Choose Saved sets, paste into Load answers, and press Load these answers.
To keep the set, name it and press Save current answers.

{
 "gb": "washed-over",
 "washedOverSettlementAck": true,
 "devType": "market-housing",
 "units": 5,
 "largeSite": "no",
 "heritage": ["lb2", "ca", "ndha"],
 "supply": "below5",
 "constraints": ["flood", "treesHedges", "access", "neighbourhoodPlan"],
 "gb7cat": "g",
 "gb7gPlanAck": true,
 "greyBelt": [],
 "greyBeltUndermine": "no",
 "unmetNeedAck": true,
 "tr3Footway": ["narrow", "oneSide", "gaps", "surface", "notStepFree"],
 "tr3Lit": "unlit",
 "tr3Speed": ["20-30", "40"],
 "tr3SpeedEvidence": 39.9,
 "tr3Services": "under800",
 "tr3Bus": "minimal",
 "tr3Rail": "limited",
 "tr3Tool": "low",
 "tr3": "fail",
 "he5": "remediable",
 "heHarmFactors": ["setting-dominate", "functional-link"],
 "heEffect": "harm-moderate",
 "heBenefits": ["housing-small", "economic-short", "env-not-demonstrated"],
 "he64": "not-outweighed",
 "he7": "not-outweighed",
 "f7": "not-demonstrated",
 "n21d": "lost",
 "dp32c": "yes",
 "tr64": "acceptable",
 "dp3Conflicts": ["context", "standards", "movement", "identity"],
 "dp3": "not-justified",
 "character": "moderate",
 "s6": "not-engaged",
 "devPlan": "significant",
 "homesAck": true,
 "otherBenefits": ["economic"],
 "routeAck": true,
 "gbHarmAck": true,
 "vsc": "not-shown"
}

The judgement calls in this set

gb: washed-over: Claverdon lies within the Green Belt on the policies map, so the site is in or on the edge of a washed-over village.
greyBelt: none ticked: Treated as grey belt, which is the applicant's best case. The route fails at limb (iii) either way.
tr3SpeedEvidence: 39.9: The applicant's own eastbound 85th-percentile figure, from the survey appended to its Transport Appraisal, taken in the 30 mph limit. No 85th-percentile survey of the 40 mph stretch toward the station is on the file.
tr3Services: under800 · tr3Bus: minimal: The surgery (about 0.43 km) and the primary school (about 0.67 km) are walkable. The case rests on the narrow range of journeys possible without a car, not on distance. On the bus, the registered timetables give one Monday-morning bus and one Wednesday return.
heritage: ndha · he7: The applicant's heritage statement treats the parkland as a non-designated heritage asset (§5.30), though of "relatively low value". The district Landscape Sensitivity Assessment calls it "a remnant of old parkland", and the Neighbourhood Plan (Valued Landscape A2, p.21) describes "ancient parkland". Remove ndha to leave it out.
heEffect: harm-moderate: This is the objectors' assessment. The applicant puts the harm at the low end. The district Landscape Sensitivity Assessment and the 1994 Conservation Area Review suggest that understates it. No Conservation Officer view is on the file.
s6: not-engaged: The Claverdon Neighbourhood Plan was made in December 2019, more than five years ago, and allocates no housing sites.
tr64: acceptable · character: moderate: Cautious answers. The Highway Authority does not object, though the splays rely on hedge removal nobody has assessed. In June the Council found "significant and demonstrable harm" from the PIP (permission in principle) scheme about 220 m east on Station Road.