Up to 635 Stonehouse homes have won outline planning permission on land north-west of the town in Gloucestershire. Inspector M Shrigley allowed the appeal on 13th October 2026, approving a mixed scheme that also includes a primary school, sport and recreation facilities. Detailed approvals remain necessary before development can proceed.
Robert Hitchins Limited and Redrow Homes Limited brought the appeal after Stroud District Council did not determine application S.23/1451/OUT. The land adjoins the Great Oldbury development, also known as West of Stonehouse. For residents, the decision permits a substantial extension of housing and associated infrastructure, rather than settling the final appearance of every street.
I would pay particular attention to the affordable housing agreement behind these Stonehouse homes. The inspector accepted a fallback mechanism intended to keep delivery moving if a registered provider cannot be secured. It does not simply remove the 30% affordable housing requirement. The decision explains why the safeguards, and the circumstances in which they could operate, mattered.
What the Stonehouse homes decision grants
The full appeal decision, reference 6009483, grants outline permission with all matters reserved. Those remaining matters include access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale. A condition caps the development at 635 dwellings, while another requires an approved phasing plan before the first reserved matters application.
The inquiry was held on 2nd and 9th September 2026 and closed in writing on 25th September. Three completed legal agreements were received during the process. By the time the inspector decided the appeal, the council’s remaining objection centred on the affordable housing cascade mechanism, although he also assessed the wider planning effects.
Affordable housing remains the starting requirement
The principal agreement secures 30% of the Stonehouse homes as affordable housing, with a 50:50 division between Affordable Rent and Shared Ownership. The inspector referred to 191 affordable homes envisaged by the scheme. Delivery through a registered provider, an organisation providing social housing, remained the primary objective.
The fallback mechanism could operate only if reasonable efforts to secure that delivery proved unsuccessful. It contains stages intended to maintain affordable provision, with a financial contribution arising only as a last resort after efforts to achieve on-site provision have been exhausted and justified. The steps would need to be repeated phase by phase.
The council questioned whether this safeguard was necessary, pointing to its experience of registered providers delivering Affordable Rent homes in the district. The inspector acknowledged that evidence. He nevertheless considered that past experience could not establish that no difficulties would arise over the future lifetime of a substantial phased development.
He described the mechanism as “an appropriate defined safeguard to minimise the prospect of the development becoming stalled at a future point”. The inspector found that it met the tests of necessity, a direct relationship to the development and proportionality in scale or kind under regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations.
For applicants, the Stonehouse homes agreement is useful because it shows the value of precise contingency provisions. I would still examine the complete proposed wording, the delivery evidence and local circumstances before suggesting a similar mechanism elsewhere. This decision accepts a particular safeguard; it does not give developers a general choice to replace affordable homes with money.
Housing need and the relationship to Great Oldbury
Both main parties accepted that the district lacked a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The council put its supply at 3.24 years and the appellants at 2.77 years. The inspector did not need to choose between those figures to decide the case because the relevant shortfall was agreed.
The Stonehouse homes proposal conflicted with adopted policies controlling development outside settlement limits. The inspector found those policies out of date in light of the housing shortfall, while examining the site’s actual relationship to existing development. Its immediate adjacency to Great Oldbury was important to his conclusion that it was physically well related to an existing settlement.
He gave substantial weight to the provision of market and affordable homes and to the scheme’s economic benefits. Infrastructure commitments intended to mitigate development impacts were given neutral weight, rather than being counted again as additional benefits. That distinction helps explain the planning balance more accurately than a list of everything the developer offered.
Landscape harm was acknowledged
The Stonehouse homes decision did not find that a large development on greenfield land would have no landscape consequences. The inspector accepted that some visual and landscape harm could not be fully mitigated. He gave that harm moderate weight, including effects on the setting of the Cotswolds National Landscape, approximately 0.5km to the east.
He also identified limited harm to the setting of Pidgemore Farmhouse, a non-designated heritage asset. The housing and economic benefits nevertheless outweighed the harms in the overall balance. Conditions require detailed landscape and ecological measures, and the reasoning emphasises the importance of the site’s existing context and the scope for planting.
Transport, open space and environmental commitments
The legal agreements examined by the inspector include a £771,600 bus service enhancement contribution, £90,000 for bus stop improvements and £116,790 for travel plan implementation and monitoring. Payments have specified triggers and indexation arrangements. A school transport contribution is also subject to a review mechanism.
The Stonehouse homes package provides for at least 5.97 hectares of on-site open space in various forms, including allotments, playing facilities, community orchards, natural green space and play areas. Detailed specifications and arrangements for transfer, management and maintenance remain part of the delivery process.
The inspector undertook an assessment of effects on protected wildlife sites and accepted secured mitigation. Conditions address biodiversity, bats, trees, archaeology, drainage, noise, lighting and construction management. The scheme is therefore tied to a substantial set of requirements, rather than being an unconditional release of land for housing.
Detailed permission and construction still need work
The Stonehouse homes permission has 32 planning conditions. Among them are deadlines for reserved matters applications, phase-specific approvals and measures concerning the Stagholt level crossing and public footpaths. The inspector’s reasoning accepts that public safety risks at the crossing can be addressed through a condition. The complete wording must be checked alongside the programme for delivering each phase.
I would now follow the reserved matters applications and discharge of conditions to understand the scheme’s detailed effects on nearby residents. Our planning appeals guidance explains the wider appeal process. Here, the outline decision resolves the principle and supporting obligations, while leaving important choices about design and implementation for the next stages.
0 Comments