Southam: 217 homes recommended for approval on 26 August

Up to 217 homes on farmland off the A423 bypass at Southam are recommended for approval when Stratford-on-Avon District Council’s Planning Committee meets on Wednesday 26 August. A near-identical scheme on the same land was refused in 2016 and thrown out by a planning inspector in 2018.

The agenda was published on 18 August. The meeting starts at 6pm in the Council Chamber at Elizabeth House, Church Street, Stratford-upon-Avon, and is open to the public.

What is being asked for

There are two linked applications from Kler Group Limited, both recommended for approval subject to a Section 106 agreement:

• 25/00346/OUT, outline permission for up to 217 dwellings, public open space, landscaping and associated infrastructure, with all matters reserved.
• 25/00347/FUL, a new traffic island, pedestrian crossing and tie-in works on the A423 to serve them.

The site sits outside Southam’s built-up area boundary in open countryside. The officer’s report lists its constraints as flood zones 1, 2 and 3, public rights of way inside and next to the site, a mineral safeguarding area, agricultural land, archaeological sensitivity, and a draft allocation in the emerging South Warwickshire Local Plan. Of the farmland itself, 5.2% is graded 3a, or good quality, and 94.8% is grade 3b.

The application came to committee rather than being decided by officers because both the ward member and the town council objected.

The number the whole case turns on

Objectors and officers are working from very different figures for how much housing land the district has.

Councillor T Bromwich’s objection, dated 16 May 2026, states that the council is “well in excess of its five year land supply, with a 5% buffer this is currently running at 14.55 years”, and that there is therefore “no demonstratable need” for the scheme.

The officer’s report puts it at 2.21 years. It uses the council’s own published position document, the 5 Year Housing Land Supply calculation at 31 March 2025. That document applies the standard method to updated dwelling stock and affordability data released in March 2025, producing a local housing need of 1,112 dwellings a year, a five-year requirement of 5,560 dwellings, and a 5% delivery buffer on top.

That gap matters because it decides the test. Below five years, paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework switches on what planners call the tilted balance: permission “should be granted unless” specific exceptions apply. The report is explicit that the council “is therefore unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and this is a key material consideration”.

Southam’s Neighbourhood Development Plan was made on 11 July 2023, recently enough to protect it under NPPF paragraph 14. But the report finds its housing allocations out of date, citing the council’s Interim Policy Position Statement of June 2026, endorsed by Cabinet on 1 June 2026. On that basis, it concludes paragraph 14 “is not engaged”.

Why 2018 does not settle it

The earlier scheme, 15/04305/OUT, sought up to 240 homes on the same land. The council refused it on 20 October 2016 and an inspector dismissed the appeal on 15 January 2018, finding harm to the character of the local landscape and conflict with the spatial strategy. An outline application in 1998 was also dismissed at appeal.

The report’s answer is that the development plan has moved underneath the inspector’s reasoning. In 2018 the inspector found the plan of the day capable of carrying the case against the scheme. The report argues that with supply now at 2.21 years and the tilted balance engaged, the same landscape harm no longer outweighs the benefits.

Who objected

Forty-three letters of objection were received, plus six comment-only responses. Councillor Gillian Padgham, the ward member, counted “over 50 objections and only one support” in her own submission.

The grounds cited by residents include the safety of the proposed roundabout, the impact on schools and health services, loss of greenspace and rural character, flooding and drainage, and cumulative impact with HS2 and the nearby supermarket.

Southam Town Council objected on 29 May 2025, arguing the site is not identified in either the Core Strategy or the Neighbourhood Plan, that there is no demonstrable need, and that other options could be pursued through the South Warwickshire Local Plan instead.

Councillor Padgham’s objection points to Core Strategy policies CS.15, CS.16 and AS.10, notes the site is outside the built-up area boundary, and argues that a further access onto a busy bypass with existing conflict points would push more congestion onto the high street. Councillor N Rock, a previous adjoining ward member, supported her case. Councillor Bromwich raised school and GP capacity, noting Southam College is oversubscribed and both surgeries are near capacity with no sites available to expand.

What the developer would pay

The Section 106 agreement would carry these contributions:

Added up, the named sums come to just over £3m. That is our addition of the figures listed in the report, which does not state a total itself. Highways contributions sit on top and are still to be agreed. They would cover improvements at the A423 and A425 roundabout, a diverted regular bus service into the site, walking and cycling routes towards the town centre and Southam College, and cycle parking in the town centre.

Of the 217 homes, 35%, or 76 units, would be affordable, secured through the Section 106. The tenure split under Core Strategy policy CS.18 is a maximum of 20% affordable rented, a maximum of 20% intermediate and a maximum of 60% social rented.

The report attaches 42 conditions. One prevents any built development or raising of ground levels inside the 1% plus climate change floodplain, or within 8 metres of the top of the bank of the River Stowe. Another requires the housing mix to be approved before or alongside any reserved matters application on layout.

If the committee resolves to grant, the legal agreement must be completed within six months of that resolution, or permission is refused instead.

Also on the agenda

• 24/03145/FUL, the petrol filling station at 95 High Street, Bidford-on-Avon. Demolition of the sales building, car showroom and workshop, and a new sales building with food to go and an ATM, an electric vehicle charging hub, two jet wash bays and parking. Recommended for approval.
• 26/01342/FUL, replacing a conservatory with a single-storey extension at 95 Shipston Road, Stratford-upon-Avon. Recommended for approval.

What it means for you

Nothing is decided until 26 August. A recommendation is officer advice, and this committee has gone against advice before.

If you want to follow it, the agenda and the full reports pack are already online, and the meeting is public. Anyone wanting to speak should contact the council’s democratic services team at committeemanagers@stratford-dc.gov.uk, and should do so before the day: at the 12 August meeting, one application was pulled from the agenda entirely because nobody had registered to speak on it.

If it is approved, the practical effects arrive in stages rather than at once. This is an outline permission, so layout, scale, appearance and landscaping all come back later as reserved matters, with a further chance to comment. The A423 works are the part with a full application attached, so they are the piece that is settled on 26 August.

We will report the outcome from the council’s own register, as we did with the Scout headquarters decision. More applications across the district are on our Stratford planning page.

Sources

• Agenda for the Planning Committee, Wednesday 26 August 2026, Stratford-on-Avon District Council, for the items, the recommendations, the venue and the time.
• Officer’s report on application 25/00346/OUT, Home Farm, Southam, for the recommendation, the site constraints, the 2.21-year housing land supply calculation, the 1,112-dwelling annual need, the representations and their grounds, the councillors’ and town council objections, the affordable housing requirement, the Section 106 contributions, the conditions and the 2016 refusal and 2018 appeal dismissal.

A committee recommendation is not a decision. We will publish the outcome once the council’s register records it.