The Stockton housing refusal has stopped an outline proposal for up to 75 homes on farmland beside Sycamore Close in Stockton, near Southam. Stratford-on-Avon District Council’s Planning Committee refused application 25/00823/OUT after a two-hour debate, despite officers recommending approval.
The committee made its decision on 21st October 2026, and the council published the confirmed result the following day. The proposal included new infrastructure and biodiversity measures, with access from Sycamore Close and a temporary construction entrance from the A426.
I think the practical point is important. The council says it can demonstrate only 2.43 years of housing land supply, yet that did not make permission automatic. The Stockton housing refusal shows how councillors can still decide that identified harm substantially outweighs housing benefits, although that judgement may now be tested at appeal.
Why the Stockton housing refusal matters
This was not a routine objection to a handful of homes. It concerned a 12.3-acre site beside a village that officers classify as a Category 2 Local Service Village. The scheme would have delivered up to 75 homes, including 35% affordable housing, public open space, planting and drainage works.
The official committee result records a recommendation to grant permission subject to a section 106 agreement, followed by the decision: refused. That distinction matters because it confirms what councillors actually decided rather than repeating the earlier officer recommendation.
The detailed refusal notice was not yet visible when the result was reported. The committee’s reasons were being converted into formal wording by officers and the chair. Readers should therefore treat the published result as decisive, but avoid assuming that a summary of the debate is the final legal wording of every refusal reason.
What Richborough proposed at Stockton
Richborough and the landowner sought outline permission. Outline permission establishes whether development is acceptable in principle, while leaving specified details for later reserved matters applications. In this case every matter was reserved except access.
The site lies outside the village’s defined physical confines and was treated as open countryside. The officer report found conflict with the adopted distribution and countryside policies, including the scale envisaged for Stockton. Our guide to settlement boundaries and planning applications explains why land just beyond a village edge can face a different policy test from land within it.
The same field had previously been the subject of a 77-home proposal refused in December 2014. The current application therefore arrived with a substantial planning history as well as new national policy, updated housing need figures and a different package of mitigation.
A 2.43-year housing supply was not decisive
The most striking feature of the Stockton housing refusal is the council’s own housing evidence. Its calculation at 31st March 2026 identifies an annual requirement of 1,084 homes and a five-year requirement of 5,420 homes. The deliverable supply equates to only 2.43 years.
That is a serious shortfall. The officer concluded that the shortfall was a key material consideration and gave very limited weight to several adopted policies where they were materially inconsistent with the 2026 national framework. The report also found an evidenced unmet need for housing and considered the site physically well related to Stockton.
Planning decisions still require a balance, though. A short supply can materially strengthen the case for housing without cancelling landscape, agricultural land, infrastructure or settlement-scale concerns. Planning Geek’s guide to five-year housing land supply explains what the figure means and why it is not a guarantee that every housing proposal will be approved.
Why councillors refused the homes
The committee debate identified three broad areas of harm: landscape character and visual amenity, the loss of grade 3a agricultural land, and the scale of development together with pressure on local facilities. Ten councillors who heard the item voted against the proposal.
Published local reporting quoted Councillor Anne Parry saying that a housing supply shortage did not mean the committee had to “rubber stamp every development that comes in front of us”. She pointed to the scheme’s scale, landscape effects and limited room to expand the primary school.
The agricultural issue carried particular weight in the debate. Most of the site appears to be grade 3a land, which falls within the best and most versatile agricultural land category. Officers accepted that its loss was a disadvantage, but assigned limited weight because other farmland remained nearby. Councillors reached a tougher view.
The committee did not adopt highways as a refusal reason. Warwickshire County Council’s highway officers had raised no objection subject to conditions and improvements. The planning manager warned that a highways refusal could be difficult to defend. Keeping that point out of the decision matters because an appeal will be determined against the council’s stated reasons, not every concern mentioned by residents.
The benefits that councillors rejected
The proposal offered 35% affordable housing. It also came with prospective contributions through a section 106 agreement, including more than £1.23 million towards education and further payments for health services, ecology monitoring, public rights of way and libraries.
Those benefits were substantial. Our affordable housing planning guide explains how planning obligations can secure the tenure, delivery and long-term control of affordable homes. The committee nevertheless concluded that the benefits did not overcome the combined harm it identified.
The officer’s committee report records 136 objections, four letters of no objection and two letters of support. Stockton Parish Council, Long Itchington Parish Council, the ward councillor and the neighbouring quarry operator were among the objectors.
Technical consultees were less hostile. Highways, drainage, ecology, fire and rescue, environmental health and Severn Trent Water raised no objection subject to conditions or detailed safeguards. That contrast is likely to be central if the applicant challenges the Stockton housing refusal.
What happens after the Stockton housing refusal?
Richborough can lodge a planning appeal after the formal decision notice is issued. The normal appeal period for a refused outline planning application is six months from the notice date. An inspector would reconsider the planning merits and the evidence supporting each reason for refusal.
The council will need robust landscape, agricultural land and infrastructure evidence. The appellant is likely to emphasise the 2.43-year supply, affordable housing, the lack of technical objections and the officer recommendation. Neither side can simply assume the committee vote will settle the appeal.
An appeal could also expose the council to a costs application if any refusal reason is found to lack reasonable planning evidence. A costs award is not automatic when councillors disagree with officers, but members must be able to substantiate the planning judgement they made.
For local residents, the immediate effect is that the 75-home scheme cannot proceed under this application. For practitioners, the Stockton housing refusal is a useful live example of the difference between giving housing need substantial weight and treating it as conclusive.
Sources and current status
The refusal is confirmed by Stratford-on-Avon District Council’s published committee result. The planning balance, housing supply figure and consultee responses come from the official committee report. The councillor quotation and vote detail were checked against published local reporting of the meeting.
This article reports a local planning authority decision in England. It is not a Planning Inspectorate appeal decision or a court judgment. The Stockton housing refusal may become an appeal story later, but no appeal outcome exists at this stage.
0 Comments