Stockton 75 Homes Refused as Councillors Overrule Officers

Plans for up to 75 homes on farmland at Stockton, near Southam, have been refused. The district council’s Planning Committee voted unanimously against the outline application on Wednesday night, overruling its own officers, who had recommended approval.

Stockton is about 16 miles east of Stratford-upon-Avon and two miles from Southam. The site is off Sycamore Close, on the edge of the village, with the A426 to the north. The application, 25/00823/OUT, came from the developer Richborough and a landowner.

The vote came at 7.53pm, about two hours into the meeting. The chair, Cllr Stuart Keighley, told the chamber it was unanimous, with none against and no abstentions.

(Planning Committee webcast, 21 October 2026, at the vote)

Why councillors said no

Cllr Anne Parry proposed refusal and Cllr Kate Rolfe seconded. Cllr Parry said councillors were “not here just to rubber stamp developments” because the council lacks a five-year housing land supply.

As the chair summed it up before the vote, the reasons are:

• harm to the landscape character and visual amenity of the area
• the significant loss of grade 3a farmland, which national policy counts as the best and most versatile agricultural land, contrary to national development management policy N2
• the scale of the scheme and its impact on local facilities

Councillors judged that these harms substantially outweighed the benefits of the homes. The exact wording of the reasons will be written by officers and agreed with the chair, so the decision notice may phrase them differently.

(Webcast at the proposal)

What officers had said

The officer report recommended approval, subject to a section 106 legal agreement. Its argument rested on housing supply. The district can show only 2.43 years of land for new homes, against the five years national policy expects, as we reported in October.

On farmland, the report agreed most of the site appears to be grade 3a. It called the loss “a dis-benefit of the scheme” but gave it “limited weight”, noting other farmland to the west and south.

(Officer report, application 25/00823/OUT)

During the debate, some councillors raised traffic. The council’s planning manager warned them against using highways as a reason. Warwickshire’s highways officers had confirmed the road network had capacity for the homes, the manager said, and refusing on that ground would put the council in “very dangerous territory” at an appeal. Traffic is not among the reasons councillors gave.

(Webcast at the highways advice)

The background

A plan for 77 homes on the same land was refused in December 2014. The officer report recorded 136 objections this time, plus four letters of no objection and two of support. Stockton Parish Council, Long Itchington Parish Council, the ward councillor Cllr Andrew Crump and Cemex, which runs the neighbouring Southam Quarry, all objected.

The scheme would have made 35% of the homes affordable. The legal agreement would also have paid £1,239,905.63 towards education, and smaller sums to the NHS, ecology monitoring, footpaths and libraries. Our earlier report sets out the full list.

The committee’s update sheet included a summary of Cllr Crump’s objection. He argued that an inspector’s decision to grant 130 homes at Bordon Hill, on the western edge of Stratford, did not dictate the result at Stockton. That scheme had “unusually strong” benefits, he wrote, which Stockton did not repeat.

(Update sheet, Planning Committee 21 October 2026)

The rest of the meeting

The meeting ran out of time. After Stockton, councillors heard one more case:

• Winchcombe Farm, Upper Tysoe: two holiday lets to become two homes. A proposal to defer it failed. The vote to grant then tied, and the chair used his casting vote to approve it. (Webcast at the vote)

At about 9.25pm councillors voted to adjourn. The three remaining cases will be heard at a reconvened meeting before 31 October:

• four detached homes at Fosse Close, Tredington
• the retrospective training centre at LP Training Services, Bearley
• the wall, gates and driveway at Cromwell Cottage, Edgehill

Updated 31 October: the four homes at Fosse Close, Tredington, were granted. The council’s planning register shows 25/02906/FUL as permission with conditions, issued on 29 October. The Bearley and Edgehill cases still show as pending decision, and the council has not yet published minutes of the 28 October meeting.

Updated 28 October: the reconvened meeting is tonight, Wednesday 28 October, at 6pm in the Council Chamber at Elizabeth House, with these three cases only. The council’s own results notice for 21 October confirms the Stockton refusal.

The date matters. From 31 October, national rules change which cases reach the committee at all. Cllr Parry told the meeting the applicants were owed a hearing before then. Here is what changes.

The sixth case, a loft conversion in Tait Way, Wellesbourne, was taken off the agenda because nobody registered to speak. It was approved under delegated powers on 22 October, according to the update sheet and the council’s planning register.

(Webcast at the adjournment)

What it means for you

For now, no homes will be built on the Sycamore Close site. The council’s planning register still showed the application as “Pending Decision” on 24 October, because the decision notice had not yet been issued.

Richborough can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. For a refused planning application the deadline is normally six months from the date of the decision notice. If it appeals, we will report it, along with whether the inspector takes comments from the public.

If you registered to speak on the Tredington, Bearley or Edgehill cases, the council says it will tell speakers and agents the new date. The agenda and reports remain on the council’s meeting page.

Councillors’ words in this report are taken from the council’s own webcast. We have not quoted members of the public who spoke at the meeting.