"Substantially outweighed": the presumption under the 2026 NPPF
Where the words appear, which way the tilt runs in each, what replaced "significantly and demonstrably", how the balance is lost, and every decision so far with a finding under S4, S5 or S6.
The short answer #
"Substantially outweighed" is the 2026 Framework's presumption in favour of development. Inside a settlement (policy S4) and, outside one, for the ten listed categories of development (S5(1)), a proposal "should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies". It replaces the December 2024 "tilted balance", whose formula was "significantly and demonstrably outweigh". It applies to every proposal, not only when a plan is out of date, and it is measured against the Framework's own decision-making policies, not the local plan.
The same words carry a different burden in S5(4). Outside every S5 category, a proposal should be approved "only in exceptional circumstances, where the benefits of the proposal would substantially outweigh the adverse effects". The tilt reverses. And in the Green Belt, S5(5) restores the forward tilt for development that passes GB7, while inappropriate development goes to the very special circumstances test instead.
What tips the forward balance is a list, not a mood: the "should be refused" policies named in S4(2) and S5(2), and the specific harms S4(2) lists. In the decisions so far, a proposal that passes the balance is almost always allowed (40 of 42 S4 passes, 16 of 16 S5(5) passes), and a proposal that fails it does so through one of those triggers.
Where the words appear #
"Substantially outweigh" appears 8 times in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) of 17 August 2026, all but one in chapter 4, Achieving sustainable development. The table lists each, the direction of the tilt, and what the policy does. Each code links to the text in our Markdown edition.
| Policy | Tilt | Text and role |
|---|---|---|
| S1(1)(a)(ii) Plan-making | reversed | Any adverse impacts of doing so would substantially outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.When a plan may provide for less than its objectively assessed need. Not a decision-making test. |
| S4(1) Decision | forward | Development proposals within settlements should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework.The presumption inside a settlement. Any development, any use. |
| S4(2) Decision | triggers | In applying policy S4, the circumstances in which the benefits of approving development are likely to be substantially outweighed by adverse effects include (but are not restricted to) situations where the development proposal would:The list of what is "likely" to tip the S4 balance: substantial impact on allocations or safeguarded land, on open space (HC7), Local Green Space (HC8), biodiversity sites (N6), Protected Landscapes (N4) or residential curtilages (L2(1)(d)); loss of cemeteries or flood storage; or any "should be refused" policy. |
| S5(1) Decision | forward | Only certain forms of development should be approved outside settlements, as set out in the following list. These should be approved, unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework:The presumption outside a settlement, for the ten listed categories (a) to (j) only. |
| S5(2) Decision | triggers | In applying this policy, the circumstances in which the benefits of approving development proposals are likely to be substantially outweighed by adverse effects include, but are not restricted to, situations where the development proposal would fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances.The S5 trigger: a "should be refused" policy. |
| S5(4) Decision | reversed | Development proposals which do not fall within one of the categories set out in this policy should only be approved in exceptional circumstances, where the benefits of the proposal would substantially outweigh the adverse effects, including to the character of the countryside and in relation to promoting sustainable patterns of movement.Outside every category: the burden reverses. The benefits must substantially outweigh the adverse effects, and the circumstances must be exceptional. |
| S5(5) Decision | forward | However, where development would not be inappropriate in these locations (through the application of policies HC8 and GB7), proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework, and applying paragraph 2 of this policy.Green Belt and Local Green Space: the presumption returns for development that is not inappropriate. Inappropriate development gets the very special circumstances test instead. |
| S6(1) Decision | triggers | For development proposals involving the provision of housing, the benefits of approving development are likely to be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects where a proposal would conflict with a neighbourhood plan, provided the following apply:A housing scheme conflicting with a neighbourhood plan made within five years that has allocations to meet its requirement is "likely" to lose the balance. |
Read the three forms apart.
- Forward (S4(1), S5(1), S5(5)). Approve unless. The decision-maker must find adverse effects that substantially outweigh the benefits before refusing, and must find them "against the national decision-making policies in this Framework". A conflict with a local plan policy that has no national counterpart is not, on its own, an adverse effect for this purpose. At South Woodford an undersized bedroom breached a local standard, but:
Whilst I have found that the appeal scheme would not provide adequate internal space for the future occupiers of room 2, this in itself does not represent specific conflict against the national decision-making policies in the Framework.
South Woodford, appeal 6010195, ¶26 - Triggers (S4(2), S5(2), S6(1)). Not tests in themselves, but statements of when the forward balance is "likely" to be lost. They point at the 14 national decision-making policies that say "should be refused" (TC3(4), M5(1), M5(2), L3(4), DP3(3), TR6(4), HC5(1), F6(1)(a), F7(2), N2(2), N4(2), N6(1)(a), N6(2), HE6(5)) and, under S4, at a short list of specific harms. The list is open:
The Framework sets out the circumstances in which the benefits of approving development are likely to be substantially outweighed by adverse effects, which include but are not restricted to the situations listed in Policy S4(2). Although none of the situations listed in the policy apply to the proposal, I am nonetheless required to consider whether the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the harm I have identified to the significance of a heritage asset.
Guildford, appeal 6007054, ¶22 - Reversed (S5(4)). Refuse unless. Outside every category the proposal must show exceptional circumstances and benefits that substantially outweigh the adverse effects, "including to the character of the countryside and in relation to promoting sustainable patterns of movement". The words sound like the Green Belt test, and are sometimes confused with it, but the bar is lower: "substantially" rather than "clearly", with no instruction to give the harm substantial weight.
Where it came from #
The December 2024 Framework had one presumption, in paragraph 11, and for decisions it switched on only where there were no relevant plan policies or the most important ones were out of date. Its formula was:
any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole
NPPF, December 2024, ¶11(d)(ii)
The December 2025 consultation draft replaced that with the S3 to S6 structure and the words "substantially outweighed", and the final text kept them. The government's response to the consultation records the objection and the answer:
respondents suggested that the need for adverse effects to substantially outweigh harm (as a basis for disapplying the ‘tilt’ in favour of development) would reduce the control local areas would have on the development that comes forward
MHCLG, NPPF consultation: government response, August 2026, response to Questions 36 to 38
The new presumption in favour of sustainable development is framed in simpler terms than its predecessor, and in combination with policies S4 and S5 is designed to give more direction about the suitability of development in different types of location.
MHCLG, NPPF consultation: government response, August 2026, response to Questions 36 to 38
The Planning Inspectorate's briefing to inspectors on the new Framework describes the change in one sentence:
It also revises the “presumption in favour of sustainable development” to be “a permanent presumption in favour of suitably located development” and applies for all proposals within and outside of settlements.
Planning Inspectorate, PINS Note 04/2026, ¶5
Three things changed at once. The presumption is permanent: it no longer waits for a plan to be out of date or a five-year supply to fail. Its yardstick is the Framework's own decision-making policies, not "the policies in this Framework taken as a whole". And its scope depends on where the site is: everything inside a settlement, only the listed categories outside one. Housing need did not disappear; it moved. Planning Geek's explainer puts it this way: "A shortage of housing land and poor housing delivery can still be very powerful, but they now operate principally as evidence of unmet need within the new policy structure rather than switching on the old paragraph 11(d) balance."
Whether "substantially" sets a different bar from "significantly and demonstrably" is an open question. Urbanist Architecture's guide lists it as one of two unresolved points: "The second is whether “substantially outweigh” creates a different threshold from the NPPF 2024 wording, “significantly and demonstrably outweigh”." No court has construed the new words. The decisions below treat them as a high bar for refusal in the forward form and a high bar for approval in the reversed one, which is what the structure implies. Cornerstone Barristers' summary of the whole scheme: development in a category "is to be approved unless its benefits would be “substantially outweighed” by the adverse effects", and otherwise "a reverse presumption applies - development outside of settlements will not be permitted save in “exceptional circumstances”, where benefits of the proposal “substantially outweigh” the adverse effects (S5(4))". Zack Simons KC, on day one: "The flip-side: if you’re outside those particular categories, you get refused permission absent exceptional circumstances where your benefits substantially outweigh your adverse effects."
How the balance is run #
Forward: approve unless #
The clean S4 case reads like Westwoodside, a house in a side garden inside a settlement boundary:
Or Poole, with a supply of 2.1 years described as "an acute deficit":The only relevant circumstance in this case, would relate to Policy L2(1)(d)) regarding development within residential curtilages but the proposal satisfies the three requirements of part d. The benefits of approving this proposal would not therefore be substantially outweighed by adverse effects. It should therefore be approved.
Westwoodside, appeal 6008883, ¶17
At Knowle the inspector allowed a garden plot with the balance stated as a pair of findings:Having examined the relevant decision-making policies in the framework outlined in Policy S4(2), I find that the proposal would accord with these requirements. Therefore, the benefits of approving the proposal would not be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects.
Poole, appeal 6005913, ¶27
There are substantial benefits of the proposal, and I have not concluded that there would be any substantial adverse effects when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework.
Knowle, appeal 6011148, ¶24
Where the forward balance is lost, it is nearly always through a trigger. Design is the commonest: policy DP3(3) says a proposal that conflicts with DP3(1) "without clear justification" should be refused, and that failure is an S4(2)(c) or S5(2) trigger (see the DP3 page). At Newquay, after finding a DP3 conflict "with no clear overriding justification":
At Ware, substantial housing weight at 3.55 years was not enough:Moreover, in view of the particular substantial adverse effects identified, I find in this instance the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework.
Newquay, appeal 6010836, ¶35
Heritage harm under HE6, highway safety under TR6(4), the loss of open space under HC7 and flood risk under F5 to F7 are the other frequent triggers in the register.Consequently, I am satisfied when having regard to paragraph 2.c. of Policy S4 of the Framework that the benefits of the scheme would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects.
Ware, appeal 6008167, ¶21
Reversed: refuse unless #
S5(4) has been passed 4 times and failed 42 times in the database. Morchard Bishop is the template for a failure:
Substantial weight to the homes under HO7 (¶19) did not get there:Part 4 of S5 says that proposals that do not fall into such categories should only be approved in exceptional circumstances. The benefits of a proposal must substantially outweigh the adverse effects including promoting sustainable patterns of movement. I attach substantial weight to the harm identified in respect of patterns of movement.
Morchard Bishop, appeal 6012985, ¶18
Aston Clinton, after a hearing, is the leading pass: 66 homes with 25% affordable in a district with a substantial shortfall, on a site covered by an emerging allocation.When assessed against the policies in the Framework, taken as a whole, the benefits of the proposal do not substantially outweigh the adverse effects. Therefore, this conflict means that permission in principle should not be granted.
Morchard Bishop, appeal 6012985, ¶22
Cople is the small-scheme pass:In my view therefore taken together the substantial benefits of the proposal would substantially outweigh the moderate weight I have applied to the adverse effects to the character of the countryside.
Aston Clinton, appeal 6008253, ¶85
Overall, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework, the benefits of the proposal would substantially outweigh the adverse effects.
Cople, appeal 6011253, ¶27
Green Belt: S5(5) #
A proposal that passes GB7 is not inappropriate, and S5(5) gives it the forward tilt with the S5(2) trigger. Burnham, a self-build house on grey belt:
It is not an automatic approval: at Fobbing five houses behind the frontage passed GB7 and still lost on character under DP3(1):I have found that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the GB having been assessed against Policies GB6 and GB7 of the Framework. As the proposal would comply with Policies N6, HE5 and HE6 of the Framework, applying paragraph 2 of Policy S5, I find that the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework.
Burnham, appeal 6005162, ¶45
Drawing the above matters together, I have identified unacceptable harm to the character of the area contrary to the development plan and Policy DP3(1) of the Framework. I conclude that the benefits of the appeal proposal would be substantially outweighed by this harm.
Fobbing, appeal 6008679, ¶46
A proposal that fails GB7 never reaches S5(5). The two tests can sit in one paragraph, as at Kingsley, where a new-build dwelling fell outside every S5 category and was also inappropriate in the Green Belt:
The very special circumstances page follows that road.When assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework, the benefits of the proposal would clearly be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects I have identified. The other considerations also do not clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm and the other harms I have identified.
Kingsley, appeal 6005495, ¶37
S6: the neighbourhood plan shield #
S6 makes a housing scheme's conflict with a neighbourhood plan "likely" to lose the balance, but only if the plan was made within five years and contains allocations to meet its requirement. Both limbs are checked. At Menheniot the plan was made in April 2022 with allocations not yet built:
At Henfield the plan was five years and two months old on the decision date:Consequently, there is no reason for me to conclude that the Neighbourhood Plan does not continue to make provision for the local housing requirement that was identified at the time it was made, less than five years ago. I therefore give substantial weight to the conflict with Policy 1 of the Neighbourhood Plan.
Menheniot, appeal 6007431, ¶23
Most of the register's S6 rows record a plan that was too old or had no allocations, so the shield did not apply.Since the HNP became part of the development plan more than five years from the date of my decision, the test at Framework policy S6(a) is not met.
Henfield, appeal 6007104, ¶29
Drafting traps #
- The 2024 formula survives in 2026 letters. 18 letters in the corpus conclude in "significantly and demonstrably" while citing S3 to S5 or GB7: 6004344, 6005108, 6005328, 6005653, 6005664, 6007104, 6007423, 6007431, 6007466, 6009042, 6009443, 6010020, 6010260, 6010418, 6010537, 6010619, 6010973, 6011694. Newtown, South Staffordshire, does both in consecutive paragraphs:
Consequently, the harm from the conflict with the development plan would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits that would arise from the development, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole.
South Staffordshire, appeal 6010537, ¶47
South Godstone applies S5(5) and then states the old test and the old consequence:For these reasons, the development would comply with Policy S5:5 of the Framework which advises that, where development would not be inappropriate in Green Belt locations, proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework.
South Staffordshire, appeal 6010537, ¶48
Under the 2026 text the presumption is permanent; it is applied and lost, not switched off.Weighing things up the adverse effects of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the decision-making policies in the Framework taken as a whole (in accordance with Policy S5). For these reasons, the presumption in favour of sustainable development is not a material consideration in this case.
South Godstone, appeal 6004344, ¶31 - S4 run for a Green Belt village. A village washed over by the Green Belt is not a settlement under Annex B, so S4 is not engaged; see the settlement page. Fobbing applies the exclusion; Bledlow Ridge ran S4 for a Green Belt site inside a village boundary and left the Green Belt question undecided.
- The S5(5) balance stated the wrong way round. A Stratford-on-Avon refusal at Malthouse Lane, Earlswood, set out S5(5) correctly and then concluded that the benefits would not be substantially outweighed, while refusing. The register notes it.
- S5(2) used to skip S5(4), and S5 applied in the Green Belt. At Hesketh Bank a trigger under S5(2) was used to avoid the reversed test; at East Horsley S5(4) was cited as "Part 4 of Policy S3" and run on a Green Belt site without S5(5). Neither should be cited as authority.
The decisions #
The register lists every decision in our database (1,064 decisions, 951 under the August 2026 Framework) with a recorded finding under S4, S5 or S6: 496 decisions and 740 findings. The finding and note for each are as recorded in the case file, which was written from the decision letter or officer report; the note gives the letter paragraphs. Separately, 492 of the 1,508 decision letters in our corpus use the words "substantially outweigh"; of those with a clear result, 84 were allowed and 370 dismissed. 80 of them have not yet been distilled into the database, and 19 are in the database without an S4, S5 or S6 finding because the decision turned on another policy. Dataset as at 2 October 2026.
241
S4: 40 allowed or approved, 201 dismissed or refused
197
S5(1): 58 allowed or approved, 139 dismissed or refused
46
S5(4): 4 allowed or approved, 42 dismissed or refused
44
S5(5): 17 allowed or approved, 27 dismissed or refused
19
S6: 11 allowed or approved, 8 dismissed or refused
S4: within a settlement 241 decisions: 196 dismissed, 34 allowed, 6 approved, 5 refused #
Approve unless the benefits are substantially outweighed. Rows under S4(2) are the trigger limbs.
| Decision | Outcome | Finding | Note, as recorded in the case file |
|---|---|---|---|
| Earlswood Delegated 26/01542/FUL, 2 Oct 2026 | refused | S4(2)(a)(ii) not-engaged | quoted in full with S4 (pp.4-5) but never applied; no finding on whether the L2(1)(d) failure was a "substantial adverse impact"; not cited in the notice |
| Oxford Appeal 6013769, 2 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | site within a settlement; benefits substantially outweighed by harm to vitality and to the conservation area (DL 22-24) |
| Edgware Appeal 6012289, 2 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | benefits substantially outweighed by character and living-conditions harm (DL 34, 37) |
| Wroxall Appeal 6012036, 2 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(c) fail S4(1) fail | proposal would fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies "which state that development proposals should be refused"; the policy is not named (DL 22) · benefits substantially outweighed by adverse effects; letter concludes the presumption in S4 "does not apply" (DL 23) |
| Nottingham Appeal 6011302, 2 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | S3 and S4 set out; benefits substantially outweighed by the adverse effects, "the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply" (DL 19-20, 24) |
| East Ham Appeal 6011081, 2 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | site within a settlement so S4 engaged; "given the conflict with Policy D3" benefits substantially outweighed; no presumption "as articulated at Framework Policy S3" (DL 29) |
| Weston-super-Mare Appeal 6010305, 2 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | benefits substantially outweighed; no presumption under S3 (DL 32, 35) |
| Stalybridge Appeal 6010069, 2 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | benefits substantially outweighed by adverse effects; S4 "does not point to permission being granted" (DL 31, 34) |
| Barking Appeal 6009965, 2 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | site within a settlement so S4 engaged; "given the conflict with Framework policies relating to the sufficient supply of homes and living conditions, the adverse effects would substantially outweigh any benefits"; no presumption under S3 (DL 17) |
| Gillingham Appeal 6009769, 2 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(a)(ii) fail S4(2)(c) fail S4(1) fail | substantial adverse impact in relation to HC7 - "As the whole of the existing open space would be lost the adverse impact would, in that respect, be substantial" (DL 36-37) · S4(2)(c) wording set out alongside (a)(ii); DP3 is the refusal policy relied on (DL 36, 38) · modest benefits "even in the context of the housing land shortfall" substantially outweighed (DL 39) |
| Leigh-on-Sea Appeal 6009318, 2 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | S4 not named; "The adverse effects of the proposal substantially outweigh its benefits when assessed against the national decision-making policies"; presumption in S3 does not apply; DP3(3) and S4(2)(c) not cited (DL 21) |
| Bushby Appeal 6009245, 2 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(c) fail S4(1) fail | failure of DP3 routed through S4; letter says benefits "likely to be outweighed", leaving out the word substantially (DL 18) · benefits substantially outweighed; not sustainable development (DL 16, 19) |
| Southend Appeal 6009119, 2 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | benefits substantially outweighed by the adverse effects and the conflict with P3; framed as a main issue in S4 terms (DL 3, 22, 24) |
| Hackney Appeal 6007927, 2 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | S3 and S4 set out; modest benefits "clearly and substantially outweighed by the adverse effects"; not sustainable development (DL 14, 16) |
| Ealing Appeal 6005995, 2 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | S3 and S4 set out; the conclusion is expressed as plan conflict not outweighed by material considerations, without stating that the benefits are substantially outweighed (DL 14-17) |
| Kippax Appeal 6011321, 1 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | benefits substantially outweighed by the highway safety harm (DL 18-21) |
| Clavering Appeal 6010951, 1 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | site within the built area of Clavering; flood and BNG harms substantially outweigh the benefits (DL 24, 32) |
| Hull Appeal 6010376, 1 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(c) fail | conflict with a should-be-refused policy indicates benefits are substantially outweighed; benefits do not outweigh the DP3 conflict (DL 70) |
| Whetstone Appeal 6009910, 1 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | one dwelling without a five-year supply is a limited benefit, substantially outweighed by significant character and living-conditions harm (DL 13-14) |
| Wolverhampton Appeal 6009135, 1 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | benefits substantially outweighed; letter says "S03" and "S04" (DL 30, 33) |
| Manchester M40 Appeal 6008018, 1 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | S3 and S4 noted; benefits substantially outweighed by the adverse effects (DL 30-31) |
| Harrow Appeal 6006890, 1 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | location acceptable in principle, but the BNG failure substantially outweighs the benefits (DL 41-43) |
| Wisbech Appeal 6002677, 1 Oct 2026 | allowed | S4(1) pass S4(2) not-engaged | site allocated within the South Wisbech broad location for growth and treated as within the settlement; benefits not substantially outweighed (DL 22, 41, 46) · none of the listed circumstances apply; the list is noted as not exhaustive (DL 42) |
| Nottingham Appeal 6002400, 1 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | presumption held not to apply; the letter states the test in inverted form: "the benefits would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects" (DL 33) |
| Rushden Appeal 6013651, 30 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4 pass | no conflict with any decision-making policy; JCS Policy 8 consistent with the Framework (DL 24-26) |
| Scarborough Appeal 6012886, 30 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | moderate-weight benefits (reuse, supply, choice, accessible location) substantially outweighed (DL 22-25) |
| Cambridge Appeal 6012279, 30 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 31, 37) |
| Bledlow Ridge Appeal 6010097, 30 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | site treated as inside Bledlow Ridge's settlement boundary; heritage harm substantially outweighs benefits (DL 15) |
| Cirencester Appeal 6009631, 30 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(c) fail S4(1) fail | F7 named as a "should be refused" policy; letter cites "Policy S4(c)" (DL 44) · economic, social and heritage investment benefits substantially outweighed (DL 44-45) |
| Westwoodside Appeal 6008883, 30 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4(1) pass S4(2)(a)(ii) not-engaged | within the settlement boundary; benefits not substantially outweighed; "It should therefore be approved" (DL 6, 16-17) · the only relevant S4(2) circumstance was L2(1)(d), development within residential curtilages; its requirements were met (DL 17) |
| Westcliff-on-Sea Appeal 6008855, 30 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 46) |
| Poole Appeal 6005913, 30 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4(2) pass S4(1) pass | no should-be-refused policy failed (DL 27) · benefits not substantially outweighed; 2.1-year supply described as an acute deficit (DL 24, 26-27) |
| Stanmore Appeal 6005822, 30 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | S4 cited; S4(2) allocation limb said to support the conclusion (the allocation is the alternative Anmer Lodge site, not the appeal site); significant benefits do not justify departing from the plan (DL 97-99) |
| Tarleton Appeal 6004952, 30 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | benefits substantially outweighed by flood and employment-loss harms (DL 25) |
| Folkestone Appeal 6004363, 30 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(c) fail | DP3(3) routed through S4(2); benefits substantially outweighed (DL 27-28) |
| Southwark Appeal 6001859, 30 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(c) fail S4 fail | letter says "S4(2)(a)(c)"; DP3(1) conflict without clear justification routed through the S4(2) trigger (DL 24) · inside settlement; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 21, 24) |
| Stretton-on-Fosse Delegated 26/01687/FUL, 29 Sept 2026 | approved | S4(1) pass | benefits "would not be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (p.7); no adverse effect identified |
| Chorley Appeal 6013087, 29 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4 pass | no unacceptable harm or conflict with the Framework's decision-making policies, so approve (DL 23-24) |
| Sturminster Marshall Appeal 6011565, 29 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | extant consent already gives one dwelling, so limited housing weight; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 20-22) |
| Weymouth Appeal 6011131, 29 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | modest housing benefit (no five-year supply) substantially outweighed (DL 23, 30) |
| Tower Hamlets Appeal 6010661, 29 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(c) fail S4(1) fail | DP3 conflict means failure to comply with a "should be refused" policy; clear justification not expressly addressed (DL 22-23) · CO1 and other public benefits substantially outweighed (DL 25, 27) |
| Nottingham Appeal 6010508, 29 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(a)(i) fail S4 fail | letter reads the safeguarding of buildings for particular uses in the development plan as covering the plan's protection of family housing (HO2) (DL 12) · benefits substantially outweighed (DL 14) |
| Enfield Appeal 6010207, 29 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | having regard to S4(2) circumstances, benefits substantially outweighed (DL 13, 17) |
| New Malden Appeal 6009988, 29 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | severe amenity harm substantially outweighs benefits (DL 23-26) |
| Bracknell Appeal 6009377, 29 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4 pass | adverse impacts would not substantially outweigh benefits (DL 81-84) |
| Bridlington Appeal 6009141, 29 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 26) |
| Camden Appeal 6008940, 29 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | benefit of one off-street space given limited weight; highway safety harm given significant weight; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 13) |
| Bournemouth Appeal 6007836, 29 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | inside settlement; construction jobs, reuse of vacant house and spend substantially outweighed by living-conditions harm (DL 36-38) |
| Leicester Appeal 6007630, 29 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | benefits (effective use of land, accessibility, local spending) substantially outweighed by harm to housing mix and living conditions (DL 16-19) |
| Newquay Appeal 6006725, 29 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(c) fail S4 fail | DP3(3) failure routed through S4(2)(c) (DL 24) · limited benefits substantially outweighed (DL 25) |
| Eastbourne Appeal 6006541, 29 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | adverse impacts "would substantially and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" - 2024 wording in the conclusion after the S4 test was set out (DL 27, 29) |
| Branston Appeal 6012885, 28 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 31, 35) |
| Peterborough Appeal 6012642, 28 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 50) |
| Romford Appeal 6010339, 28 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | letter says the benefits "does not substantially outweigh" the adverse effects, inverting the S4 formula (DL 18) |
| Milton Keynes Appeal 6009760, 28 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | limited-weight benefits (shared affordable accommodation, efficient use, supply) substantially outweighed; S4(2)(c) framing set out (DL 20-22) |
| Preston Appeal 6009669, 28 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | limited benefits; DP3 failure means refusal under S4 (DL 21-22) |
| Sedgeford Appeal 6008840, 28 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | limited benefits of one dwelling substantially outweighed (DL 24-32) |
| Watford Appeal 6006990, 28 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 23, 26) |
| Godalming Appeal 6006117, 28 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 27) |
| Pillerton Priors Committee 26/01894/PIP, 25 Sept 2026 | refused | S4(1) fail S4(1) pass S4(2)(a)(ii) not-engaged | members - "The harm is considered to substantially outweigh any benefits associated with the scheme" (Notice reason 1) · officer view - the benefits "would not be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (Report p.17); recommendation GRANT · officer view - quoted in full (Report p.7) but never applied; no finding on whether the L2(1)(d) failure was a "substantial adverse impact"; the notice cites S4 and L2 but not S4(2) |
| Pavement outside 137 Chiswick High Road Appeal 6012328, 25 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 36-38) |
| Stafford Appeal 6011888, 25 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(c) fail S4 fail | letter reads S4(2)(c) as directing refusal where a decision-making policy is not complied with (DL 23) · S4 rather than S5 because the site is within the village (DL 23) |
| Elton Appeal 6011882, 25 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 30) |
| Uffington Appeal 6011227, 25 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 27, 32) |
| Bromley Appeal 6010811, 25 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2) not-engaged S4(1) fail | "There are no specific national policies directing refusal in this case"; none of the S4(2) situations apply, but S4(1) still weighed (DL 21-22); DP3 not considered · benefits substantially outweighed by the heritage harm (DL 25) |
| Luton Appeal 6009487, 25 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | benefits substantially outweighed; S4 does not point to permission (DL 37, 42-43) |
| New Malden Appeal 6009076, 25 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(a)(i) fail S4(1) fail | loss of commercial floorspace and land safeguarded by DM17/LP E4, E7 without marketing evidence; "substantial weight to the impact on land and buildings safeguarded" (DL 6-9, 19, 23) · benefits substantially outweighed by affordable housing failure and loss of safeguarded employment land (DL 25) |
| Chatteris Appeal 6008859, 25 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4 pass | allocated site "within the settlement of Chatteris"; benefits not substantially outweighed (DL 43) |
| Wigan Appeal 6008026, 25 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | P3 conflict means harm would substantially outweigh the benefits (DL 33-34) |
| Beaconsfield Appeal 6007582, 25 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(c) fail | fails 2 Framework should-be-refused policies (F7, DP3(3)); letter inverts the S4 formula ("would not ... substantially outweigh the adverse effects") (DL 48) |
| West Wickham Appeal 6007183, 25 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4 pass | harm to units 1-3 does not substantially outweigh benefits (DL 72) |
| Cranleigh Appeal 6006825, 25 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | via S4(2)(c); benefits substantially outweighed (DL 40-44) |
| Preston Appeal 6006018, 25 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | benefits of 2 additional retail units and 2 additional dwellings substantially outweighed by the character harm (DL 18-19) |
| Southend-on-Sea Appeal 6004873, 25 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(c) fail S4 fail | DP3 named as a policy stating proposals should be refused; conflict means benefits substantially outweighed (DL 28) · inside settlement; benefits substantially outweighed; conclusion framed on development plan as a whole (DL 28-29) |
| Cambridge Appeal 6012284, 24 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | S4(2)(c) framing set out; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 16, 22) |
| Padiham Appeal 6011037, 24 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | benefits substantially outweighed by heritage and amenity harms (DL 29-31) |
| Peterborough Appeal 6010349, 24 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 31-33) |
| Cuddington Appeal 6009513, 24 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 43) |
| Seamer Appeal 6009092, 24 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | inside development limits; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 40-43) |
| Hesketh Bank Appeal 6007730, 24 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4(1) pass S4(2)(a)(ii) not-engaged | accords with the development plan; no conflict with the Framework's decision-making policies; S3 and S4 indicate approval (DL 17-18) · no reason to find a substantial adverse impact in relation to L2(1)(d), so not a circumstance in which benefits are likely to be substantially outweighed (DL 16-17) |
| Sevenoaks Appeal 6007698, 24 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(c) fail S4(1) fail | mapped: the letter says "Having regard to Policy S4" and identifies DP3(3) as a refusal policy; S4(2)(c) is not cited by limb (DL 14) · benefits limited to private benefits to the appellant; substantially outweighed by the adverse effects (DL 14) |
| Broadstone Appeal 6007434, 24 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 34) |
| Highbury Appeal 6005904, 24 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4 pass | benefits not substantially outweighed; plan conflict (PLAN1, D4) outweighed by material considerations including the Framework (DL 16, 20-21) |
| Farnham Appeal 6005594, 24 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | inside settlement; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 20, 23) |
| Islington Appeal 6005590, 24 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(c) fail | set out at DL 35 as the should-be-refused circumstance; DP3(3) then directs refusal (DL 47) |
| Etwall Appeal 6011093, 23 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4 pass | benefits not substantially outweighed (DL 24, 28) |
| Eastbourne Appeal 6010944, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | adverse impacts "would substantially and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" - a hybrid of the 2024 and 2026 wording (DL 24) |
| Grays Appeal 6010223, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 16) |
| Cradley Heath Appeal 6010155, 23 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4 pass | no adverse effects identified, so approve (DL 24) |
| Lacey Green Appeal 6009997, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | site treated as within the settlement; benefits substantially outweighed by the highway-safety harm (DL 33, 37) |
| Hull Appeal 6009857, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(c) fail | conflict with a should-be-refused policy; benefits do not outweigh (DL 34) |
| Walton-on-Thames Appeal 6009738, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | substantially outweighed (DL 25) |
| Bolton Appeal 6009313, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | small social/economic benefits substantially outweighed (DL 14-15, 21) |
| Tottenham Appeal 6008944, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 20) |
| Harwich Appeal 6008784, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects through harm to the CA" (DL 23) |
| Maidenhead Appeal 6008337, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | cited as "S04"; "benefits … would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects … the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply" (DL 28, 32) |
| Reading Appeal 6007941, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | great weight to housing and efficient land use against a 3.55-year supply, substantially outweighed by totality of harms (DL 37-40) |
| Backworth Appeal 6006322, 23 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4(2)(a)(ii) not-engaged S4(1) pass | no substantial adverse impact in relation to the N6 policies, so the presumption applies; the letter writes "S4 paragraph 2 a. ii." (DL 36-37) · site within a settlement; benefits not substantially outweighed; decision made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan (DL 35, 38, 46) |
| Halifax Appeal 6006305, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | moderate economic benefits substantially outweighed; presumption "does not apply" (DL 16-19) |
| Long Marston Delegated 26/01906/PIP, 22 Sept 2026 | approved | S4(1) pass | within BUAB; none of S4(2)(a)-(c) engaged; benefits not substantially outweighed |
| Chiswick Appeal 6012542, 22 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | E2 and TC2 substantial-weight benefits substantially outweighed by heritage and pedestrian-safety harm (DL 29-31) |
| York Appeal 6011055, 22 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(a)(i) fail S4 fail | unjustified loss under HC6 is "the type of substantial adverse impact referred to in Policy S4(2)(a)(i)" (DL 63) · moderate benefits (reuse, jobs, sustainable location) substantially outweighed (DL 59-64) |
| Great Brington Appeal 6010826, 22 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 not-engaged | site outside village confines as defined by LP2 Table 3, so not within the settlement (DL 22) |
| York Appeal 6010035, 22 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(a)(i) fail | unjustified loss of the community facility, cultural venue and employment use gives a substantial adverse effect (DL 46, 64) |
| Hurst Green Appeal 6009357, 22 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4 pass | conflict with DMG2 Tier 2 village strategy does not substantially outweigh benefits (DL 13-16) |
| Bolton Appeal 6009276, 22 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 35) |
| Kingston upon Hull Appeal 6009228, 22 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(c) fail | DP3 and TR6 treated as "should be refused" policies; with HE6 conflict, benefits outweighed (DL 36) |
| Feltham Appeal 6008707, 22 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | limited benefit (no additional dwelling, modest housing choice) substantially outweighed (DL 13-17) |
| Weston-super-Mare Appeal 6007423, 22 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | not expressly concluded as substantially outweighed; "would not result in sustainable development" (DL 25-27) |
| Worcester Appeal 6006644, 22 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(a)(ii) fail S4(2)(c) fail S4(1) fail | substantial adverse impact on the application of L2 to development within residential curtilages (DL 46) · DP3 and TR6 refusal policies failed (DL 46) · benefits substantially outweighed (DL 46) |
| Reading Appeal 6004809, 22 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | recorded with inverted wording: "the benefits would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects" (DL 61) |
| Glossop Appeal 6011421, 21 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | S4 support "does not indicate that planning permission should be granted"; substantially-outweighed test not expressly stated (DL 25-26) |
| Gloucester Appeal 6010909, 21 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4(1) pass | benefits not substantially outweighed; allowed despite conflict with the development plan as a whole (DL 21-24, 30) |
| Edgware Appeal 6010702, 21 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | one net unit in "apparent undersupply" given moderate weight; substantially outweighed (DL 22-24) |
| St Neots Appeal 6009545, 21 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | "when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework, the benefits of the proposal are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL 23) — reached despite low-level heritage harm v substantial-weight benefits |
| Doncaster Appeal 6009127, 21 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 24) |
| Wigan Appeal 6008977, 21 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | modest HMO benefit and L2 airspace (dormer) benefit substantially outweighed by P3 and DP3 conflicts (DL 39-41) |
| Guildford Appeal 6007054, 21 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2) not-engaged S4(1) fail | none of the listed situations applies, but S4(2) list is not exhaustive (DL 22) · benefits substantially outweighed by the heritage harm (DL 26) |
| Godalming Appeal 6006517, 21 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | no S4(2) circumstance said to apply, yet benefits substantially outweighed given DP3 and F7 refusal directions (DL 43-44, 50) |
| Ormesby Appeal 6004752, 21 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | benefits substantially outweighed by habitats harm; S4 does not point to permission (DL 30-31) |
| Walthamstow Appeal 6011375, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | one dwelling's limited benefits substantially outweighed by highway harm and missing BNG metric (DL 42-44) |
| Thornton Heath Appeal 6010501, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | net one extra unit (limited weight) substantially outweighed by loss of small home and poor cycle and refuse storage (substantial weight) (DL 27-30) |
| Dartford Appeal 6010288, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | two spaces and an EV charger attract modest weight; substantially outweighed (DL 23, 26) |
| Midland Street Appeal 6009866, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(c) fail S4(1) fail | failure to comply with a "should be refused" national policy (DP3) (DL ¶23, ¶31) · adverse effects "substantially outweigh" the benefits for both appeals (DL ¶32) |
| Southgate Appeal 6009211, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2) fail | benefits substantially outweighed, including substandard 2.5m floor-to-ceiling height (London Plan D6) (DL 5-7, 17) |
| Boldon Colliery Appeal 6006846, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(c) fail S4(1) fail | TR6(4) is a national refuse-in-specific-circumstances policy, so S4(2)(c) applies (DL 25-26) · benefits substantially outweighed; "conflicts with Policy S4" (DL 26) |
| Farnham Appeal 6006720, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(c) fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 31, 34) |
| Newton Abbot Appeal 6006656, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | benefits substantially outweighed; presumption under S3 not engaged (DL 24-25) |
| Alcester Delegated 26/01376/FUL, 17 Sept 2026 | refused | S4(2)(c) fail | failure of F7, a "should be refused" policy, makes the benefits "likely to be substantially outweighed" |
| Oxshott Appeal 6012221, 17 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4(1) pass | benefits not substantially outweighed; approve (DL 18) |
| Guildford Appeal 6011786, 17 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4(1) pass | no substantial adverse effects and no failure of a "should be refused" policy (DL 27-30) |
| Knowle Appeal 6011148, 17 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4(1) pass | substantial benefits; no substantial adverse effects under Framework decision-making policies (DL 21, 24) |
| Leigh-on-Sea Appeal 6011040, 17 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4(1) pass | within settlement — adverse effects do not substantially outweigh (DL 19) |
| Nottingham Appeal 6010946, 17 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | limited benefits of one HMO substantially outweighed by loss of a family dwelling in a 65% HMO/student output area (DL 27-31) |
| Broseley Appeal 6010905, 17 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(c) fail | DP3 conflict treated as failing a "should be refused" policy; presumption does not apply (DL 13) |
| Mayfield Appeal 6010765, 17 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | limited public benefits substantially outweighed (DL 24-25) |
| Bracknell Appeal 6010429, 17 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | harm to open New Town frontages and TPO roots, visibility splay over third-party land opposite a primary school entrance, no BNG metric (DL 7-16) |
| King's Lynn Appeal 6010197, 17 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(c) fail | failing DP3 is a S4(2) refusal-policy circumstance; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 34-35) |
| Folkestone Appeal 6009917, 17 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(a)(i) fail | LP E4 safeguards visitor accommodation; not shown that safeguarding is no longer appropriate (no viability, weak marketing) - substantial adverse impact (DL 6-16, 29-30) |
| Claygate Appeal 6008555, 17 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | unbalances semi-pair, less than 1 m to boundary; overbearing to neighbours' side doors and landing window 2.4 m away (DL 7-16) |
| Hartlepool Appeal 6008410, 17 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | adverse impacts substantially outweigh the benefits (DL 44) |
| Battle Appeal 6007272, 17 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | benefits substantially outweighed by failure to secure affordable housing (DL 57-63) |
| Crawley Appeal 6004062, 17 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | benefits substantially outweighed by adverse effects (DL 22, 26) |
| Huddersfield Appeal 6012370, 16 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4(1) pass | no substantial adverse impacts; safeguarding objection unsubstantiated (DL 5, 13) |
| Bedford Appeal 6007932, 16 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | code mapped by harvester — "when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework, the benefits of the proposal are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL 19) |
| Watlington Appeal 6007871, 16 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4 pass | DP3 adverse effects would not substantially outweigh benefits of a dwelling and tidied site (DL 9) |
| Brixton Road Appeal 6007793, 16 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | benefits substantially outweighed by HE6, HE9 and DP3 conflict (DL 44-45) |
| Durham Appeal 6005969, 16 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | very modest benefits substantially outweighed (DL 22-25) |
| Durham Appeal 6004850, 16 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | very modest benefits substantially outweighed; moderate harm to living conditions (DL 21, 24-27) |
| Durham Appeal 6004494, 16 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | very modest benefits substantially outweighed; moderate harm to living conditions (DL 21, 24-27) |
| Newquay Appeal 6010836, 15 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | within the settlement of Newquay; benefits substantially outweighed by character and living-conditions harm (DL 29, 35) |
| Ilford Appeal 6010379, 15 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | 8.2 sq m communal room against 21 sq m SPD (significant weight) plus highway harm substantially outweigh moderate housing benefits, despite HDT 24%/30% (DL 28, 31-34) |
| Batley Appeal 6010024, 15 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | "obvious and enduring" harm, significant weight; small economic benefits substantially outweighed (DL 14) |
| Halifax Appeal 6009852, 15 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | one dwelling (moderate weight) substantially outweighed (DL 14-16) |
| Huddersfield Appeal 6009626, 15 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | one net additional unit, moderate weight, substantially outweighed (DL 12-14) |
| Ealand Appeal 6009098, 15 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | limited benefits of one dwelling substantially outweighed (DL 27-30) |
| Southend-on-Sea Appeal 6008643, 15 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4(1) pass | parking harm to living conditions does not substantially outweigh greater housing capacity; approved despite DM15 plan conflict (DL 24-25, 29) |
| Polegate Appeal 6008314, 15 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4 pass | benefits "not … close to being substantially outweighed" (DL 110) |
| Camberwell Appeal 6010838, 14 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4 pass | no adverse effects, so S3 and S4 indicate approval (DL 36-37) |
| Worthing Appeal 6010518, 14 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | personal benefits (space, energy performance) limited; substantially outweighed (DL 14-15) |
| Bromley Appeal 6010191, 14 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | within settlement; letter concludes benefits "would be outweighed by the adverse effects" — omits "substantially" (DL 22, 26) |
| Coventry Appeal 6008646, 14 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | supported-housing benefit reduced for lack of need evidence; P3 and TR6(4) conflicts called very substantial harm (DL 19-22) |
| Gateshead Appeal 6007856, 14 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | limited benefits (motorhome storage, security) substantially outweighed (DL 24) |
| Gosport Appeal 6011101, 11 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2) fail | failure of a "should be refused" policy (TR6 unacceptable highway safety) is a circumstance in which benefits are likely to be substantially outweighed (DL 17-19) |
| Birmingham Appeal 6011088, 11 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | HMO benefits (limited) substantially outweighed by loss of family housing and inadequate communal space (DL 19-23) |
| Woodford Appeal 6010877, 11 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4 pass | no harms against national decision-making policies, so benefits not substantially outweighed (DL 30-34) |
| Poole Appeal 6010619, 11 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(a)(ii) fail | substantial adverse impact on application of L2(1)(d) and DP3 refusal policy; benefits outweighed (DL 55-59) |
| Ipswich Appeal 6010023, 11 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | concluded contrary to S4, but DL 25 literally says benefits "would not be substantially outweighed" - inverted wording (DL 25) |
| Lewisham Appeal 6009541, 11 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | moderate benefits substantially outweighed; S3 presumption does not apply (DL 36-39) |
| Catford Appeal 6004929, 11 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4 pass | benefits not substantially outweighed; departure from plan (SD7 conflict) justified (DL 55, 60-61) |
| Wirral Appeal 6013310, 10 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | outlook harm "would substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL 11) |
| Leicester Appeal 6010557, 10 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | benefits substantially outweighed by adverse effects (DL 23, 25) |
| Ware Appeal 6008167, 10 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(c) fail | failure of DP3 refusal policy means benefits substantially outweighed despite substantial weight (DL 16, 21) |
| St Day Appeal 6004909, 10 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | site outside the main urban area of St Day but "well related to existing homes" and treated as within a settlement; harm substantially outweighs benefits (DL 19, 21) |
| Bourton-on-the-Water Committee 25/03800/FUL, 9 Sept 2026 | approved | S4(2)(a)(i) pass | no "substantial adverse impact" on the employment allocation, because extant consents exceed the allocation, a PD fallback to retail exists and the scheme generates comparable jobs; "the safeguarding of this part of the allocated site is no longer appropriate in this particular instance" |
| Kings Langley Appeal 6011803, 9 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 not-engaged | washed-over linear development with gardens backing onto fields is not a built-up area, so S5 not S4 applies; even under S4 the garden would not be PDL (DL 18-19) |
| St John's Wood Appeal 6011521, 9 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | benefits substantially outweighed; S4 "does not point to permission being granted" (DL 29) |
| Manchester Appeal 6011458, 9 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | presumption engaged "irrespective of" 7.5-yr supply because site is within a settlement; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 26, 28) |
| Leicester Appeal 6010783, 9 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 23-24) |
| 285 High Road Leyton Appeal 6010391, 9 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | failure of DP3(1)/(3), HE4, HE6 and HE9 means benefits substantially outweighed (DL 29-33) |
| South Woodford Appeal 6010195, 9 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4(1) pass | undersized bedroom (6.7 sq m against 7.5 sq m SPD) conflicts with the local plan but "does not represent specific conflict against the national decision-making policies", so adverse effects do not substantially outweigh benefits (DL 24-27) |
| Liverpool Appeal 6008534, 9 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | benefits "substantially outweighed" by adverse effects (DL 29) |
| Barnet Appeal 6007883, 9 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | "any benefits are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the revised Framework" (DL 25) |
| West Norwood Appeal 6007861, 9 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) pass | council argued S4 equates to old 11(d); with no heritage harm, S4 complied with (DL 30) |
| Islington Appeal 6007715, 9 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 35) |
| Churchill Appeal 6007705, 9 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4(2)(a)(i) pass S4 pass | loss of safeguarded employment site "significant but it is not of substantial weight", so not a substantial adverse impact on safeguarding (DL 49) · benefits "of very considerable weight" not substantially outweighed; justifies decision contrary to the plan (DL 49-50) |
| Ivinghoe Appeal 6007136, 9 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | within settlement; S4 balance applied — heritage harm outweighs (DL 33-35) |
| Truthwall Appeal 6003055, 9 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail S4(2)(a)(ii) fail | alternative finding - even if within the settlement, harm substantially outweighs benefits (DL 28) · alternative finding - substantial adverse impact on the NL (N4) (DL 28) |
| Worcester Appeal 6011840, 8 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | two extra HMO bedrooms (HO7/HO9/TR3/L2) limited weight, substantially outweighed by tree harm (DL 25-29) |
| Ilford Appeal 6009871, 8 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2) fail | modest benefits substantially outweighed, "arising in part from the failure to comply with Policy TC3" (DL 18-22) |
| Billericay Appeal 6009787, 8 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | new emphasis on making good use of land within settlements acknowledged, but backland form out of character - harm "substantially outweighs" benefits (DL 10-14) |
| Chigwell Appeal 6009640, 8 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | substantially outweighed via S4(2) "should be refused" route (DL 22-26) |
| Belsize Park Appeal 6009503, 8 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 29) |
| Hampstead Appeal 6009198, 8 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 22-25) |
| Hampsthwaite Appeal 6009197, 8 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4 pass | limited harm from shaded, awkward garden (82 m2) does not substantially outweigh benefits given significant supply shortfall (DL 22-27) |
| Selston Appeal 6008160, 8 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | failures of design, highway and biodiversity policies mean the proposal should be refused; the wide-ranging harms substantially outweigh the benefits (DL 49) |
| Prestbury Appeal 6007323, 8 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | larger, more luxurious replacement does not overcome adverse effects (DL 19) |
| Cliviger Appeal 6006054, 8 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | not named, but within settlement; benefits "substantially outweighed" by heritage and character harm (DL 20) |
| Priors Hardwick Delegated 26/01211/FUL, 7 Sept 2026 | approved | S4(1) pass | dwelling and garden held "within the physical confines of the village" |
| Selston Appeal 6011373, 7 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(c) fail S4(1) fail | not cited by limb; DL 21 says "In these circumstances, Policy S4.2 … confirms that the benefits … are likely to be substantially outweighed" — i.e. DP3(3) is a 'should be refused' policy (DL 21) · benefits substantially outweighed (DL 22) |
| Birkdale Appeal 6010758, 7 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | adverse effects "substantially outweigh the benefits … including the benefit afforded to development within a settlement" (DL 17) |
| Croydon Appeal 6008438, 7 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | adverse impacts "would substantially and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" — hybrid of old and new wording (DL 21) |
| Formby Appeal 6008359, 7 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | TC2 substantial weight to local-centre vitality substantially outweighed by DP3, HE6 and HE7 conflict (DL 24-26) |
| North Finchley Appeal 6007373, 7 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4 pass | within settlement; limited harm from disabled parking shortfall does not outweigh benefits; inspector phrases test inverted as "benefits … substantially outweigh its adverse effects" (DL 21-22) |
| Maidstone Appeal 6005653, 7 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | S4 quoted correctly (DL 36) but conclusion uses old wording: adverse impacts "significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" (DL 43) |
| Lewisham Appeal 6010822, 4 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | design, neighbour enclosure, unsecured PBSA and car-free obligations, BNG failure substantially outweigh benefits (DL 53-59) |
| Bramham Appeal 6010416, 4 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | heritage, trees, highway safety (reversing on a narrow hill) and BNG failure substantially outweigh private benefits (DL 37-39) |
| South Croydon Appeal 6009886, 4 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | TR6 "should be refused" limb - substantially outweighed; presumption not engaged (DL 40-42) |
| London N4 Appeal 6008436, 4 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 32) |
| Islington Appeal 6008154, 4 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 29) |
| Hunmanby Appeal 6007221, 4 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | within settlement; benefits (moderate) substantially outweighed by adverse effects assessed against national decision-making policies (DL 47-51) |
| Hunmanby Appeal 6007220, 4 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | moderate benefits substantially outweighed (DL 47-51) |
| Bournemouth Appeal 6007161, 4 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | "benefits ... would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects ... the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply" (DL 28, 31); S4(2) limbs not cited |
| St Mawes Appeal 6002880, 4 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | combined harm substantially outweighs limited benefits (DL 22) |
| Croydon Appeal 6011471, 3 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | balance expressed in 2024 words — harms "would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" (DL 15) |
| Hereford Appeal 6010739, 3 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4(2)(a)(i) neutral S4 pass | no adverse impact on safeguarding buildings for particular uses (DL 32) · benefits not substantially outweighed by significant amenity harm (DL 37) |
| Poole Appeal 6007779, 3 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | adverse impacts 'would substantially outweigh the benefits of the scheme' (DL 74) |
| Otley Appeal 6006128, 3 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4 pass | town-centre site; benefits not substantially outweighed; S4 "directs that such proposals in settlements should be approved" — outweighs development plan conflict (DL 51, 59) |
| Haringey Appeal 6003086, 3 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(c) fail S4(1) fail | DP3 treated as a national decision-making policy that says proposals "should be refused", so the S4(2)(c) circumstance applies (DL ¶29, ¶32) · adverse effects "substantially outweigh" the benefits, for both the planning and advertisement appeals (DL ¶33) |
| Bath Committee 25/04961/FUL, 2 Sept 2026 | refused | S4 fail | officers — within settlement, approve unless substantially outweighed, no significant harm; members refused on height, scale and massing |
| Bath Committee 25/03592/FUL, 2 Sept 2026 | approved | S4 pass | within settlement; benefits not substantially outweighed |
| Wickford Appeal 6011137, 2 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | S4(2) list "not a closed list"; one example is where policies require refusal (DL 11) |
| Loughton Appeal 6007526, 2 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | benefits substantially outweighed; presumption does not apply (DL 19-22) |
| Southport Appeal 6010397, 1 Sept 2026 | allowed | S4(1) pass | moderate solar harm does not substantially outweigh one airspace home; Framework outweighs plan conflict (DL 19, 23) |
| Orpington Appeal 6009605, 1 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | hybrid wording — harm "would substantially and demonstrably outweigh the benefits … The proposal is not therefore sustainable development for which there is a presumption in favour" (DL 23); mixes S4 "substantially" with old 11(d) "demonstrably" |
| Harrogate Appeal 6007391, 1 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 39-40) |
| Westcliff-on-Sea Appeal 6006985, 1 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S4(2) fail | failure of a refuse-trigger policy means benefits likely substantially outweighed (DL 15, 17) |
| Ilmington Delegated 26/01399/PIP, 28 Aug 2026 | refused | S4(1) fail | within Ilmington BUAB (Category 3 LSV); "benefits … would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects, namely the identified harm to heritage assets" |
| Hastings Appeal 6004449, 28 Aug 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | benefits substantially outweighed by adverse effects (DL 19, 23) |
| Bidford-on-Avon Committee 24/03145/FUL, 27 Aug 2026 | approved | S4(1) pass | not analysed; the update sheet simply states the 2026 NPPF "does not affect the substantive matters" |
| Watford Appeal 6010362, 27 Aug 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | poor living conditions (DP3) substantially outweigh modest benefit; TR6(4) and HC6 passed (DL 21, 24, 31) |
| Woodford Green Appeal 6005325, 27 Aug 2026 | dismissed | S4(2)(c) fail S4 fail | DP3(3) refusal direction engages S4(2)(c); benefits substantially outweighed (DL 25, 30-31) · within settlement, S4 applied; small scale limits benefits (DL 24, 29, 31) |
| Putney Appeal 6010864, 25 Aug 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | telecoms benefits (emergency calls, wifi, monitoring) substantially outweighed by amenity harm from a centrally sited, perpendicular, illuminated unit adding clutter and obstructing pedestrians (DL 10-13, 16) |
| West Wickham Appeal 6010818, 25 Aug 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | clutter and a 1.2 m effective footway (under 1 m when in use) on a busy high street; pedestrians forced towards the carriageway; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 8-18) |
| Beckenham Appeal 6010814, 25 Aug 2026 | allowed | S4 pass | "generally accord with Framework policy S4's support in principle for development within settlements" (DL 10) |
| Ealing Appeal 6010063, 25 Aug 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | one extra unit limited weight - substantially outweighed (DL 15-16) |
| Poole Appeal 6007128, 24 Aug 2026 | dismissed | S4(1) fail | benefits "substantially outweighed" by adverse effects (DL 34, 37) |
| Poole Appeal 6006144, 24 Aug 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | benefits substantially outweighed; S3 presumption "would not apply" (DL 25, 28) |
| Worcester Appeal 6010271, 21 Aug 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | limited benefits of one home "substantially outweigh[ed]" by character harm (DL 23) |
| Acton Appeal 6009929, 20 Aug 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | one unit, no specific shortfall advised - limited weight; enduring design and NDSS headroom harm significant weight - substantially outweighed (DL 13-14) |
| Hayling Island Appeal 6004592, 17 Aug 2026 | dismissed | S4 fail | applied as 2024 para 11(d): adverse impacts 'significantly and demonstrably outweigh' the benefits (DL 26, 29) |
S5(1): outside a settlement, within a category 197 decisions: 132 dismissed, 36 allowed, 22 approved, 7 refused #
The same tilt, for proposals in one of the ten categories. The finding on each limb is shown; (j) is the unmet-need route and (e) limited infilling.
| Decision | Outcome | Finding | Note, as recorded in the case file |
|---|---|---|---|
| Killington Appeal 6013634, 2 Oct 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(a) pass | horticulture is one of the forms of development outside settlements that should generally be approved (DL 16); no separate S5(1) balance run |
| Fowlmere Appeal 6011365, 2 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j)(i) fail S5(1) fail | S5(1)(j) paraphrased at DL 22; "the proposal would not be suitably related to a settlement and its need for access to services and facilities could not be accommodated by available infrastructure" (DL 28); site detached from the village across a gap · unsuitable location, character harm and loss of agricultural land "would substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL 28); S5(4) not cited |
| Stanton on the Wolds Appeal 6010392, 2 Oct 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(d) pass | parties agree the scheme is redevelopment of previously developed land, so it "benefits from part 1.d of Policy S5"; S5(5) not mentioned although the site is in the Green Belt; no adverse effects, so it accords "with whichever Framework policy were to be applied" (S4 or S5) (DL 13-14) |
| Charley Appeal 6009255, 2 Oct 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(c) pass S5(1) pass | outside settlements S5 applies; the forms of development that should be approved "include the re-use of an existing building"; limb not numbered and the building's construction and lawfulness not discussed (DL 17) · benefits "not substantially outweighed by the adverse effects in this particular instance" (DL 21) |
| Thurlestone Appeal 6008892, 2 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(b) pass S5(1) fail | a location outside a settlement accepted as "reasonably necessary" for a facility serving golfers, beach users and walkers (DL 12-13) · benefits substantially outweighed by adverse effects (DL 16) |
| St Agnes Appeal 6008432, 2 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(d) fail S5(1)(e) fail S5(1)(j)(i) fail | site cannot be considered PDL for the purposes of the appeal (DL 32) · adjacent to dwellings but an extension to the group of buildings, not within it (DL 32) · not physically well-related to a settlement, because there is no settlement; letter says "Policy S5.1.j" (DL 31) |
| Wendron Appeal 6008292, 2 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(a) pass | S5 support for agriculture and horticulture outside settlements stated with its test, but no conclusion is reached in S5 terms; the appeal is decided on the development plan (DL 22, 27) |
| Weeton Appeal 6012202, 1 Oct 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(d) pass S5(1) pass | redevelopment of previously developed land; criterion (d) does not require the site to be physically well-related to a settlement, a requirement found only in (h) and (j) (DL 14-15) · benefits not substantially outweighed; presumption applies (DL 14, 20) |
| Glentham Appeal 6011337, 1 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(e) fail S5(1)(j) fail | not infill, as it extends development away from the settlement (DL 21) · no unmet need for housing in general (five-year supply and Housing Delivery Test met); specialist-need evidence is numeric and does not show a need for large four-bedroom houses for over-55s at a small village edge (DL 6, 9-13, 22) |
| Remenham Appeal 6011062, 1 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(d) pass | redevelopment of previously developed land; applied to a Green Belt site in place of S5(5) (DL 41); letter says "Criterion d)" |
| Hitchin Appeal 6009720, 1 Oct 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(j) not-engaged | Council argued conflict with S5(1)(j); S5(5) takes Green Belt proposals out of S5(1) (DL 28) |
| Brigsley Appeal 6009363, 1 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j)(i) pass S5(1) fail | letter says "S5(1ji)"; no five-year supply, and the site adjoins the development boundary, so physically well-related to an existing settlement; the scale and infrastructure limb is not addressed (DL 5, 22) · benefits substantially outweighed by the adverse effects (DL 24) |
| Tosside Appeal 6009649, 30 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1) fail | principle "attracts support" as rural business/tourism and reuse of hardstanding (limbs b and d referred to, not formally concluded); benefits substantially outweighed (DL 31-32, 36) |
| Chapel-en-le-Frith Appeal 6009410, 30 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(a) pass S5(1) pass | "Policy S5 of the Framework supports development for agriculture outside settlements and does not require such development to support an existing agricultural enterprise" (DL 22) · modest benefits not substantially outweighed by limited adverse effects including the plan conflict (DL 23) |
| Spurstow Appeal 6009407, 30 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) pass | "relatively close to existing development in physical terms", so accords with S5:1.j; TR3 not tested within (j) despite the location finding at DL 13-15 (DL 51) |
| Truro Appeal 6009030, 30 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(f) fail S5(1) fail | exception site under HO10 (DL 26) · harm "would substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL 28) |
| Somerford Appeal 6008864, 30 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j)(i) pass | edge of Somerford next to the Congleton boundary; "strong functional and spatial relationship" with Congleton, services "within a very short journey"; modest scale (DL 28-29) |
| Salisbury Appeal 6007924, 30 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(j) pass S5(1)(j)(i) pass S5(1) pass | no five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 10) · physically well related to Old Sarum via the adjacent park and ride, with a pavement link to the settlement; an earlier inspector found the site part of the consolidated Old Sarum development (DL 11-12) · no other harm and no Framework conflict, so nothing substantially outweighs the benefits (DL 45-46) |
| Brenzett Appeal 6007677, 30 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(d) pass | parties agree redevelopment of previously developed land; inspector agrees (DL 25) |
| Melksham Appeal 6007352, 30 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) pass S5(1)(j)(i) fail | unmet need shown - 2.8-year supply and unmet self-build demand on the register (DL 26-27) · not physically well-related to the settlement in accessibility or character; narrow unlit lane with no footways; appellant accepts occupiers would drive (DL 9, 27) |
| Fenny Compton Delegated 26/01801/FUL, 29 Sept 2026 | approved | S5(1)(c) pass | quoted and held met, "Subject to a detailed assessment of all other material considerations" (p.6); the new linked building (17.5 m by 5.8 m) is called "a substantial extension" (p.8), but the report makes no finding on whether it is a "disproportionate increase" over the existing building |
| Harpley Appeal 6010422, 29 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) pass S5(1)(j)(i) fail | evidenced unmet self-build need (appellant claims 243-plot shortfall; Council concedes supply not met); no minimum contribution required by the Framework (DL 31, 39-41) · physically adjacent and of limited scale, but character and highway harm make "the nature of the development … inappropriate in this location" (DL 42) |
| Devon Appeal 6009619, 29 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(d) pass | existing holiday dwelling is PDL; material change of use to residential falls within (d) (DL 15) |
| Inkberrow Appeal 6009011, 29 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(b) fail | rural business element, but no evidence a countryside location is necessary (DL 42-43) |
| Hamerton Appeal 6008987, 29 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) pass S5(1) fail | engaged by supply shortfall (3.5-3.68 years); spatially well-related as next to settlement edge; single dwelling, infrastructure adequate (DL 31-33) · benefits substantially outweighed (DL 41) |
| Claypole Appeal 6008915, 29 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(b) fail | convenience and commercial advantage of co-location with the equestrian business do not show a location outside a settlement is necessary; no evidence the use could not go in or next to a settlement or on employment land (DL 6-11) |
| Colney Appeal 6008791, 29 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) fail | no 5YHLS (figure not stated); (j) cited; benefits substantially outweighed because N6(1) directs refusal (DL 43-44); (j)(i) well-related limb not separately tested |
| Singleborough Appeal 6008773, 29 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(e) pass | limited infilling within a group of housing (DL 26) |
| Upton St Leonards Appeal 6005652, 29 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(c) pass | permanent and substantial building; modest extension not disproportionate; "The requirements of S5(1) c appear satisfied" (DL 4, 30) |
| Winsford Appeal 6012304, 28 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j)(i) fail | supply 1.6 years engages (j), but nearest settlement Cuddington and Sandiway about 1 km away, so not physically well related (DL 29) |
| Crewe Appeal 6010642, 28 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j)(i) fail | about 2 km from Middlewich and Holmes Chapel, not physically well related to any settlement (DL 24) |
| St Agnes Appeal 6010498, 28 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(e) pass S5(1)(j)(i) not-engaged S5(1) fail | "the proposal could constitute limited infilling"; possibly also S5(1)(d) PDL (DL 23) · "not of relevance given that it requires developments to be physically well related to a defined settlement" (DL 23) - the Framework text says existing settlement · harm would substantially outweigh the benefits even with substantial weight to HO7/L2 (DL 26) |
| Wimbish Appeal 6008762, 28 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(e) pass | "the proposal would amount to limited infilling within a group of houses" (DL 11, 15); but the balance then fails, and the letter says the proposal "would therefore not satisfy paragraph 1.(e)" (DL 41) |
| Boughton Monchelsea Appeal 6007158, 28 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(e) fail S5(1)(j)(i) fail | near a group of houses but adjoins orchard on two sides, not infill (DL 42) · not physically well-related - read through countryside location and walking, cycling and public transport constraints; scale limb met (DL 44) |
| Welland Appeal 6006722, 28 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(e) fail | some distance from built form on one side, a large paddock from the single house on the other; not infilling within a group (DL 35) |
| Chalfont St Giles Appeal 6011889, 25 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) not-engaged | supply shortfall acknowledged, but S5(5) means S5 does not apply in the Green Belt (DL 23) |
| Uffington Appeal 6011227, 25 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j)(i) pass S5(1)(e) fail | physically well related; six homes acceptable in scale; private treatment possible despite Anglian Water objection; letter also cites "(j)(ii)" for the scale and infrastructure clause, which is part of (j)(i) (DL 28-29) · northern section not infilling within a group (no built form to the north and west) (DL 29) |
| West Willoughby Appeal 6010911, 25 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(e) pass S5(1)(j)(i) fail S5(1) pass | paddock between two dwellings; limited infilling within a group of houses (DL 15, 30) · no five-year supply, but the hamlet is not a settlement, so the site cannot be well related to one (DL 30) · benefits not substantially outweighed; presumption applies (DL 33) |
| Bobbing Appeal 6010408, 25 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(b) fail S5(1)(j) fail | nothing inherent in the business needing this site; appellant intends to relocate within 3 years; alternative Sittingbourne premises not properly discounted (DL 7, 9-17, 25) · no evidenced unmet need shown (DL 7, 25) |
| Wiswell Appeal 6009990, 25 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j)(i) fail S5(1) fail | unmet need accepted in principle; Barrow "not a significant distance" but not physically well related given poor accessibility (accessibility reading of (j)(i)) (DL 15) · benefits substantially outweighed (DL 17) |
| Heathfield Appeal 6009517, 25 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) pass S5(1) fail | outside the settlement boundary but physically well related to the linear development along the A267; 3.44-year supply (DL 23) · highway harm substantially outweighs the benefits (DL 30) |
| Bilsborrow Appeal 6007133, 25 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(b) fail S5(1)(j)(i) fail S5(1)(j)(ii) not-engaged | not shown to be development for rural businesses (DL 34) · unmet employment need assumed; site physically well-related to Bilsborrow, but "well-related" read to include how the proposal relates to surrounding character, which fails (DL 38, 40, 43) · flexible E(g)/B8 use could be delivered with no freight and logistics, so the scheme does not wholly fall under (j)(ii); E3 compliance left open (DL 39, 41-43); letter says "S5(j)(ii)" |
| Ladbroke Delegated 26/01660/OUT, 24 Sept 2026 | approved | S5(1)(j)(i) pass | the 2.21-year supply taken as the evidenced unmet need; "well-related to an existing settlement" asserted in one sentence (p.5), although the site is outside the "physical confines" (p.3) and "divorced from the edge of Ladbroke" by a field (p.6) |
| Wellington Appeal 6012293, 24 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(c) pass | mapped; letter finds a genuine conversion under local DM2 but does not name an S5 category or run the S5 test (DL 9-12) |
| Bognor Regis Appeal 6010637, 24 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(j) pass | letter cites "Framework Policy S5" without a limb; 3.23-year supply as unmet need, well related to the settlement, scale accommodated by infrastructure - the (j)(i) wording (DL 14) |
| Tibenham Appeal 6010418, 24 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(e) fail S5(1)(j)(i) fail | letter finds the site not an infill plot, then says it falls within the scope of S5(e) as part of a group, then that adverse effects substantially outweigh so no support; internally inconsistent (DL 12) · not physically well related to an existing settlement; Diss about 5 miles (DL 17, 20) |
| Windermere Appeal 6010157, 24 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(a) fail | outdoor sport and recreation category referred to; benefits substantially outweighed; S5(2) triggers DP3(3) and F7 weigh strongly (DL 33-35) |
| Poundstock Appeal 6010020, 24 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(e) fail S5(1)(j)(i) fail | large field gap; not infilling even if the houses form a group (DL 20) · unmet housing need applies, but the site is some distance from a settlement, so not physically well related (DL 21) |
| Brookville Appeal 6009844, 24 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) fail S5(1)(e) fail S5(1) fail | self-build shortfall possibly an unmet need, but the self-build element cannot be secured (no legal agreement; condition not shown enforceable) (DL 11-12, 30) · open fields north and south; houses on one side only on Brook Lane; not infilling within a group (DL 31-32) · no category met, so "a clear directive to dismiss"; S5(4) exceptional-circumstances test not named, balance framed as adverse effects "would outweigh the benefits" (DL 34, 36) |
| Hurst Green Appeal 6009691, 24 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j)(i) fail S5(1)(e) fail | letter finds site "would not be physically well-related to the existing settlement" on access grounds, without naming a category; evidenced need not shown (DL 10, 19) · not infill - adjoins a dwelling on one side and fields on the other (DL 14) |
| Pickwell Appeal 6008693, 24 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) fail S5(1)(j)(i) fail | self-build shortfall accepted as unmet need, but (j)(i) fails (DL 21) · not "physically well-related" because the access is at the point furthest from the village along a narrow road with no footpath; an accessibility reading of the limb (DL 21) |
| Aston Clinton Appeal 6008253, 24 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(j) pass S5(1)(j)(i) fail | evidenced unmet need agreed; infrastructure capacity met via s106 (DL 79) · very close to the settlement, accessed from it and near services, but "not physically well related" because of character and setting harm (DL 80) |
| Buntingford Appeal 6008238, 24 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(j) pass S5(1)(j)(i) pass S5(1) pass | supply 2.21 to 2.88 years, so evidenced unmet need; scale accommodated with the s106 infrastructure (DL 17-19) · physically well related despite the A10, which is largely in cutting and read as "a soft connection"; bridges, toucan crossing, intervisibility with Neale Drive, adjacent business park and allocation (DL 20-24) · very substantial collective benefits not substantially outweighed; Framework given very significant weight; s38(6) departure (DL 163-171) |
| Rusper Appeal 6007772, 24 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(d) pass | letter says S5(d); redevelopment of PDL hardstanding outside a settlement, modest and not isolated (DL 11, 13, 35) |
| Spreyton Appeal 6014952, 23 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(b) pass | necessity of a location outside a settlement met by the functional relationship with the existing established storage business next door (DL 8, 11) |
| Morchard Bishop Appeal 6012985, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(e) fail S5(1)(j) fail | no houses immediately either side along the lane - "could not reasonably be considered a natural infilling" (DL 10, 18) · no 5YHLS, but about 400m from Morchard Bishop with verdant gaps and a steep hill - physically and functionally separated, not well related (DL 9, 12, 17-18) |
| Uffculme Appeal 6011431, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1) fail S5(1)(h) fail | outside any settlement; no S5(1) limb identified; adverse effects under TR3/CC2 substantially outweigh limited benefits (DL 22-24) · Tiverton Parkway station not within reasonable walking distance, no footways, not physically well related (DL 10) |
| Turves Appeal 6011235, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(d) pass | undisputed redevelopment of PDL (barn with past B2/B8 and equestrian use); not S5(1)(e) infill (DL 23) |
| Melbourne Appeal 6011217, 23 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(d) pass | redevelopment of PDL; benefits not substantially outweighed (DL 16-17, 24) |
| Sheepy Parva Appeal 6009220, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) pass S5(1)(e) fail | no 5YHLS and, per Council, well related to settlement — "some support" in principle; limb not named (DL 10-11) · not infill — part of an expansive open gap between village edge and Meadowside; would extend a ribbon (DL 5-6) (made without naming S5(1)(e)) |
| Bridgnorth Appeal 6008804, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(b) fail | even assuming a countryside location is necessary, benefits substantially outweighed by adverse effects (DL 18) |
| Helston Appeal 6008414, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j)(i) fail | across the road and hedge from the terrace; visually and physically separate; "does not adjoin nor is it physically well-related to a settlement" (DL 10-12, 25) |
| Mylor Bridge Appeal 6007807, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(d) fail | site outside settlement boundary but PDL (lawful residential curtilage, earlier appeal); category engaged but moderate benefits substantially outweighed (DL 8, 21-23) |
| Dane End Appeal 6007451, 23 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(d) pass S5(1)(j) pass | tennis court (asphalt on engineered base, chain-link fencing) accepted as PDL; a small incursion into the field for the driveway is "of no real significance" (DL 7-10) · no five-year supply accepted; site directly adjoins the settlement; single dwelling acceptable in scale (DL 10) |
| Rosudgeon Appeal 6007416, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j)(i) pass | 3.8/3.9-yr supply; site physically well related to Rosudgeon (DL 9, 24) |
| Henfield Appeal 6006961, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(e) fail S5(1)(j) not-engaged | built development on the south side of the lane only; the north side is predominantly open with sporadic, screened development; the site is not within a group of houses (DL 14, 32) · not argued; "It has not been put to me that the proposal would accord with any of the other criteria" in S5(1), despite a housing land supply shortfall; the site does not adjoin a settlement edge (DL 9, 12, 32) |
| Great Brington Appeal 6010826, 22 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) pass | no 5-year supply agreed; physically well related to Great Brington; infrastructure can take one dwelling (DL 23). Inspector wrote "(j)(i) and (j)(ii)" though (j)(ii) is the freight limb |
| Trimingham Appeal 6008881, 22 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(b) pass S5(1)(c) pass | supported as tourist development (with S5(1)(c) reuse, E2, E4); economic benefit modest (DL 22) · redundant small garage reused without significant alteration (DL 5, 22) |
| Shrewsbury Appeal 6008785, 22 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) pass | gateway met - no 5YHLS (4.61 council, 3.81 appellant), physically well-related to Hook-a-Gate, scale accommodated (DL 37) |
| Worcestershire Appeal 6008601, 22 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(c) fail S5(1)(j) not-engaged | reuse of existing building is a listed category, but benefits substantially outweighed by loss of rural employment space (DL 15-17) · no net additional dwelling, so S5(1)(h)/(j), HO8 and HO11 do not apply (DL 15) |
| Halsall Appeal 6007428, 22 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(e) fail | loose-knit pattern, not a continuous frontage; infilling status would not decide sustainability anyway (DL 18) |
| Gringley-on-the-Hill Appeal 6006950, 22 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(c) fail S5(1)(d) fail S5(1)(j) fail | barns permanent and substantial but not same use and new dwelling disproportionately larger; Class Q unavailable (DL 22, 29) · only part of site is PDL (building footprint and access); rest becomes garden; S5(1)(d) "does not relate to the partial redevelopment of PDL" (DL 16, 30) · evidenced unmet need (4.15 yrs, SBCH shortfall) and infrastructure OK but not physically well-related to Gringley-on-the-Hill (DL 31) |
| Puxton Appeal 6006629, 22 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(g) benefit | evidenced unmet traveller need (131-pitch five-year requirement claimed); no five-year pitch supply; emerging allocations also in FZ3a (DL 23-24, 36) |
| St Columb Appeal 6006078, 22 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(a) fail | agriculture is a listed S5(1) use, but the inspector applied the S5(1) proviso: modest benefits "substantially outweighed" by localised but clearly adverse landscape harm and lack of demonstrated need (DL 22-23); limb not named in letter, mapped by harvester |
| East Horsley Appeal 6011694, 21 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(c) pass S5(1)(d) pass | barn conversion is reuse of a lawful permanent building (DL 25) · redevelopment of PDL (working sawmill) (DL 25) |
| East Lambrook Appeal 6010393, 21 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) fail | in the alternative, harm would still substantially outweigh benefits (DL 23) |
| Billingshurst Appeal 6010187, 21 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) fail | 1-year supply means unmet need, but the dwelling is agreed isolated, so not physically well-related to a settlement; no presumption under S3 (DL 30) |
| Kirtlington Appeal 6009985, 21 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) fail S5(1)(d) benefit | at least 700 m from Kirtlington across fields and golf course - not physically well-related (DL 9, 20, 30) · inspector says the site "could be described as" PDL attracting S5 support - questionable for an agricultural building (DL 32) |
| North Newton Appeal 6008548, 21 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(j) pass | 4.17-year supply engages the policy; site adjoins the North Newton boundary; Tier 4 village with school, pub, hall; some car reliance "not unusual in rural areas"; no infrastructure constraint (DL 13-17) |
| Fordingbridge Appeal 6008115, 21 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(c) pass | permanent, substantial brick barn; modest footprint increase not disproportionate (DL 24-26) |
| Sidlow Appeal 6006496, 21 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1) fail | agriculture is an S5 category, but S5(2) is triggered by N6 and TR6 "should be refused" policies; modest rural-economy benefits substantially outweighed (DL 43-47) |
| Cliffe Woods Appeal 6004691, 21 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j)(i) fail | need limb met (3.1 yrs, HDT 60%) but site set away from visually contained edge of Cliffe Woods across Merryboys Road; reads as countryside off a rural lane — not physically well-related (DL 14-15) |
| Ockley Appeal 6011498, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1) not-engaged | inspector said that even if the scheme fell within an S5(1) category, benefits would be substantially outweighed; category not identified (DL 53-54, 57) |
| Pitstone Appeal 6010848, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j)(i) pass | 3.73-year supply; site physically well related to Pitstone (larger village) and infrastructure can accommodate one dwelling (DL 33) |
| Coryates Appeal 6010834, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) fail S5(1) fail | 2.53-yr supply = evidenced unmet need, but Coryates (loose-knit hamlet, no services) not an existing settlement the site is well-related to (DL 11, 26-27) · no other limb a-j met (DL 27); S5(1)(e) infill not discussed despite plot being garden between two dwellings (DL 7, 21) |
| West Bagborough Appeal 6010616, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) pass | just outside settlement; well related and appropriate scale; 3.95 years supply (DL 17) |
| Ripon Appeal 6010348, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(c) fail S5(1)(j) fail | replacement must be for the same use; agricultural barn to dwelling is not (DL 27) · council lacks a 5YHLS (figure not given) but no net addition over the extant conversion and not physically well-related to Galphay (DL 23, 27) |
| Stogursey Appeal 6010090, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) fail | council lacks a 5YHLS (figure not stated) but site not physically well-related to an existing settlement (DL 18) |
| Spalding Appeal 6009598, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(c) pass | building of permanent and substantial construction; LP Policy 23 requirement for architectural/historic merit inconsistent with Framework, limited weight to conflict; no need to prove countryside necessity once (c) met (DL 12-14) |
| Rudgwick Appeal 6009474, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(e) fail S5(1)(h) fail | undeveloped parcel with sporadic development nearby is not limited infilling within a group of houses (DL 16) · not within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station (DL 17) |
| Bude Appeal 6009443, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(b) fail | benefits (spend, renewables, EV charging, BNG) substantially outweighed by landscape and accessibility harm (DL 26-27) |
| Chatteris Appeal 6008500, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1) fail | not a listed category; annexe functions as an independent dwelling (DL 20-22, 37) |
| Findon Appeal 6006900, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(e) fail S5(1)(j) fail | next to one dwelling only; other buildings sporadic and distant — not limited infilling within a group (DL 26) · 4.8-yr supply gives unmet need, but not physically well-related to Findon — unlit, unpaved narrow NSL lane then A24 bypass crossing (DL 15-17, 26) |
| Thornton Appeal 6004496, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) pass | no 5YHLS (figure not stated); backland plot "within the wider fringe of the built-up edge of Thornton"; single dwelling no infrastructure pressure (DL 20-21) |
| Beckington Appeal 3375062, 18 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(j) pass | no 5YHLS undisputed; well related to primary village; "no adverse impacts which would lead to conflict with Policy S5" (DL 5, 41) |
| Gaydon Delegated 25/01765/FUL, 17 Sept 2026 | approved | S5(1)(i) pass S5(1)(j) pass | land allocated for employment in the development plan, albeit restricted to JLR-related uses · evidenced unmet need for employment land; well-related to Gaydon Lighthorne Heath; part (ii) freight and logistics also met |
| Chavel Appeal 6011150, 17 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j)(i) fail | no 5YHLS undisputed but site not physically well-related to an existing settlement (DL 32) |
| Wilbarston Appeal 6010401, 17 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1) not-engaged | appellant accepted no S5(1) category applied (DL 5) |
| Leire Appeal 6009409, 17 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(c) fail S5(1)(d) fail S5(1)(j) fail | replacement must be for the same use; stable replaced by dwelling is a different use (DL 18) · stable, barn and menage occupy only a small part of a wider field and proposal includes undeveloped land - site not PDL as a whole (DL 18) · 5YHLS shortfall so (j) relevant, but not physically well-related to Leire - separated by field, dismantled railway and landscaped strip (DL 12, 19) |
| Upper Seagry Appeal 6008434, 17 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(d) fail S5(1)(j) fail | equestrian site accepted as PDL so (d) engaged (incl. material change of use to residential), but benefits substantially outweighed (DL 5, 31, 36) · not physically well-related to Upper Seagry; separated by farmland, 300 m of 60 mph lane with no footway (DL 10, 31) |
| Haslemere Appeal 6006581, 17 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(h) pass S5(1)(j) not-engaged S5(1) fail | agreed within reasonable walking distance of Haslemere station (well-connected); directly adjoins settlement with access from built-up area so "physically well-related" despite landscape harm; no infrastructure or comprehensive-development objection (DL 78-80) · not considered because (h) was met (DL 80) · permanent irreversible NL harm "substantially outweigh" substantial benefits (DL 90) |
| Hurst Green Appeal 6004144, 17 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) fail | gateway met (well-related, unmet need) but benefits "substantially outweighed" by odour harm (DL 51-54) |
| Pinvin Delegated W/26/00329/FUL, 16 Sept 2026 | approved | S5(1) fail | no category met; (h), (i) and (j) considered; S5(1)(c) replacement is not discussed |
| South Creake Appeal 6010354, 16 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(e) fail | mixed-use enclave (caravan sites, light industry, a handful of houses) is not a "group of houses"; land to one side has a mobile home, not a house (DL 20-21) |
| Bolney Appeal 6009838, 16 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) fail | 3.38-year supply = evidenced unmet need, but single access onto Lodge Lane away from The Street with gaps to footpath/houses - not physically well-related, regardless of infrastructure capacity (DL 13-15) |
| Holsworthy Beacon Appeal 6009632, 16 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(e) pass | near Hawarden, another dwelling and two dwellings under construction; hamlet properties form a group, not only linear; council had accepted "infill" (DL 14) |
| Petrockstowe Appeal 6009618, 16 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(e) fail S5(1)(j) pass | undeveloped field visually/functionally connected to farmland - extension of settlement, not a small gap in a continuous frontage (DL 34-35) · no 5YHLS (4.61 years) and criteria met - (j) relevant (DL 36) |
| Bevercotes Appeal 6007348, 16 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(e) pass S5(1)(d) not-engaged S5(1)(j) fail | site within the built form of Bevercotes between houses; 3 dwellings replacing a larger group of barns = limited infilling within a group of houses (DL 53) · agricultural buildings excluded from PDL definition (DL 50) · 5.31-year supply accepted, so no unmet need (DL 45-47, 52) |
| Smarden Appeal 6006475, 16 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) pass | agreed well-related to Smarden; scale accommodated; 3.16-yr supply (DL 61) |
| Robertsbridge Appeal 6005903, 16 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) pass S5(1)(h) fail | evidenced unmet need; "meets the terms of Policy S5(1.j.i)" (DL 41) · within reasonable walking distance of Robertsbridge station but not shown to be a "well-connected station" per Annex B (DL 42) |
| Fen Drayton Appeal 6011872, 15 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) fail | self-build shortfall (456 plots) treated as evidenced unmet need, but site not "suitably related to a settlement" and access-to-services need "could not be accommodated by available infrastructure" (DL 19, 22, 26) |
| Harefield Appeal 6010520, 15 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(b) pass | rural business where a location outside settlements is necessary (DL 47) |
| Little Dunham Appeal 6009588, 15 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) pass | 2.82-year supply = evidenced unmet need; physically well-related (continues frontage pattern, shared access); no infrastructure issue (DL 24-26) |
| Tydd St Mary Appeal 6009463, 15 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(c) fail | treated as equivalent to LP Policy 23 - open-fronted, partly collapsed barn needs new front, side rebuild and new roof; "incorporation" not conversion (DL 3, 8-9) |
| Great Eccleston Appeal 6008848, 15 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(c) pass | lawful, permanent and substantial building, no extension; supports re-use "irrespective of their intended use" (DL 14-16) |
| Whitchurch Appeal 6006893, 15 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) pass | evidenced unmet need (2.2-3.1 yrs); "physically well-related" read as physical connectivity, not landscape/visual; scale accommodated by infrastructure (DL 69) |
| Ockley Appeal 6006697, 15 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(a) fail | development for agriculture is a listed category and the Framework does not require trade/business or reasonable necessity, but lacking justification the benefits are unclear and limited; substantially outweighed (DL 51-52) |
| Danbury Appeal 6006289, 15 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(d) pass S5(1) fail | exposed building slab means remains have not blended into landscape so site is PDL (DL 16, 33) · harms "substantially outweigh the benefits"; letter mislabels the 5YHLS limb as "h)" (it is (j)) (DL 33, 37) |
| Broadway Delegated W/26/01874/PIP, 14 Sept 2026 | refused | S5(1)(e) fail S5(1)(h) fail | not "limited infilling within groups of houses", since no houses directly adjoin and the one house opposite is not itself in a group · within 800 m of Broadway station, but the station is not "well-connected" under Annex B (under 2 trains an hour; no Monday or Friday service) |
| Naunton Beauchamp Delegated W/26/01828/PIP, 14 Sept 2026 | approved | S5(1)(e) pass | a plot between existing dwellings to the north and south is "limited infilling within a group of houses" |
| Callow End Delegated M/26/01162/PIP, 14 Sept 2026 | refused | S5(1)(e) fail | the site is across the road from the village boundary; countryside prevails on its side of Upton Road; "a standalone extension of residential built form into the open countryside", not infill and not "rounding off" |
| Hallow Delegated M/26/01131/FUL, 14 Sept 2026 | refused | S5(1)(d) pass | probably PDL. The building's lawful uses have been Class B/E, and part has lawful residential use (CLEUD), so it is not solely agricultural; a Class MA fallback is noted. The officer does not then apply the S5(1) "substantially outweighed" test. |
| Ledbury Appeal 6011314, 14 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(c) pass | extension not disproportionate to the existing building as a whole (DL 45) |
| Walton Highway Appeal 6011256, 14 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(c) pass | reuse of an existing building is a listed category (DL 19) |
| Cople Appeal 6011253, 14 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(j) fail | site "physically relates most closely to the open countryside" despite Cople/Willington nearby; backland to roadside group (DL 8-9, 12) |
| Roche Appeal 6010442, 14 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) fail S5(1)(e) fail | 3.9-year supply, but site in a small cluster about 280 m from Roche's edge, separated by the A391 bypass and open land; "not physically well-related" (DL 10, 20) · land beside the last house would extend the cluster, not infill "within" it (DL 20) |
| Tarleton Appeal 6009486, 14 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(c) pass S5(1) pass | reuse of an existing lawful, permanent building; (c) "does not only relate to rural agricultural buildings" (DL 24) · adverse effects not so significant as to substantially outweigh benefits; presumption applies (DL 27) |
| Norwood Appeal 6007642, 14 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(c) fail | extension limb considered; listed-building harm and S5(2) route mean benefits substantially outweighed (DL 34-37) |
| Burton Fleming Appeal 6006422, 14 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(a) pass | outside development limits; "development for agriculture or infrastructure (including energy)"; adverse effects do not substantially outweigh (DL 57, 62) |
| Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor Appeal 6005809, 14 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(j) pass | unmet need shown despite a (marginal) 5YHLS and HDT of 177/193/192%: "including, but not limited to" means supply and HDT are not the only evidence; marginal supply + significant affordable need (2,904 on register) suffice. Well-related "spatially, functionally and visually"; scale accommodated by existing and proposed infrastructure (DL 55-60) |
| Fawley Appeal 6003569, 14 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(a) pass | energy infrastructure is a listed form of development outside settlements, "supporting the principle of the scheme" (DL ¶24) |
| Lydiard Millicent Appeal 6001260, 14 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(j)(i) pass S5(1)(j)(ii) pass | physically well-related to Common Platt / western Swindon edge; S5 does not require adjoining the principal built form or a continuous segregated footway (DL 24-25, 27) · no infrastructure provider objection; no evidence capacity exceeded (DL 26) |
| Tanworth-in-Arden Committee 26/00918/PIP, 11 Sept 2026 | approved | S5(1)(j) pass | run first, before the officer turned to S5(5); site treated as well related to "the settlement of Tanworth-in-Arden" although the village is washed over by Green Belt |
| Woolley Moor Appeal 6011648, 11 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(c) pass | extension of an existing lawful, permanent building; proportionality measured against the building as at 17 Aug 2026 (fn25) - 22.4% increase, not disproportionate, though 70.6% over the original (DL 15-16) |
| Broadwas Appeal 6010973, 11 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(e) pass | paddock between Cedars Farm and Oaklands, behind a group of houses, close to Broadwas boundary = limited infilling within a group of houses (DL 13-14) |
| Castle Bytham Appeal 6007403, 11 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j)(i) fail | no 5YHLS so (j) relevant, but development "spilling over" a defined settlement edge down a slope is "not physically well-related" — character harm used as the test (DL 13, 22) |
| Drayton Appeal 6005108, 11 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(j) pass | unmet need via <5YHLS; well related to Drayton by landscape containment and transport connectivity; scale accommodated (DL 137-140) |
| Welford-on-Avon Committee 26/00772/PIP, 10 Sept 2026 | approved | S5(1)(j) pass | 2.21-year supply = evidenced unmet need; edge of a Category 2 LSV, "physically contained by residential development on two sides" |
| Bournheath Appeal 6011301, 10 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1) pass | S5 applies to GB development that is not inappropriate; no S5(2) refusal policy engaged; limited-weight benefits not substantially outweighed by conflict with BDP2 settlement boundary (DL 24-27, 31-32) |
| Ansty Appeal 6011079, 10 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(g) fail | unmet Gypsy need accepted but HO12 criteria not met, so outside the S5(1) categories (DL 26, 35) |
| Washington Appeal 6009593, 10 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(d) pass S5(1)(j) fail S5(1)(e) pass | stable and hardstanding accepted as PDL, but development extends into paddock which is not clearly PDL (DL 12) · significant shortfall undisputed but site not physically well-related to a settlement; hamlets/scattered groups excluded by Annex B definition (DL 13) · inspector raised it herself; single dwelling in a gap between two houses fronting Spring Gardens is "limited infilling within groups of houses" (DL 14-15) |
| Fen Drayton Appeal 6009303, 10 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) fail | no evidence of under five years' supply or HDT below 75%; unenforceable self-build UU so no contribution to self-build need; not suitably related to a settlement (DL 13-15, 19, 22) |
| Bredicot Appeal 6009042, 10 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(c) fail | large glazed link extension projects beyond the barns and dominates them - disproportionate increase (DL 15-16) |
| Menheniot Appeal 6007431, 10 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) pass | 3.9-year supply; well related to Clicker and of appropriate scale; "a material consideration of critical importance" (DL 18) |
| Mileham Appeal 6005970, 10 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(j)(i) pass | 2.82-yr supply; site "physically well related" to Mileham (shop, hall, church, bus stop almost opposite), modest scale accommodated (DL 29, 31) |
| Kingsley Appeal 6005495, 10 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) fail | meets unmet need, but not physically well-related to a settlement (fn28) (DL 25, 37) |
| Stratford-upon-Avon Delegated 26/01588/PIP, 9 Sept 2026 | approved | S5(1)(j) pass | about 0.5 km beyond the Stratford-upon-Avon BUAB on the B439 Evesham Road; "well-related to an existing settlement" |
| Shavington Committee 26/0640/FUL, 9 Sept 2026 | approved | S5(1)(j)(i) pass S5(1) pass | 3.3-year supply = evidenced unmet need; adjoins settlement boundary, 'rounding off'; scale accommodated by infrastructure · benefits not substantially outweighed; technical matters neutral |
| Truthwall Appeal 6003055, 9 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j)(i) pass S5(1) fail | outside settlement boundary but well-related to built form; 3.8-yr supply - "could therefore be said to be met" (DL 26-27) · harm to CA and NL "would substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL 27) |
| Kislingbury Committee WNS/2022/0673/MAF, 8 Sept 2026 | refused | S5(1)(j) pass | supply shortfall of about 0.7 years; the site adjoins Kislingbury (Secondary Service Village A) with a school, shop, pubs and a regular bus to Northampton; scale proportionate. "broadly compliance to Policy S5 … in so far as subparagraph 1j" |
| St Austell Appeal 6010729, 8 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(b) neutral | noted as supporting rural tourism where a location outside settlements is necessary; not applied as a formal gateway (DL 22) |
| Claydon Appeal 6010228, 8 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(b) fail S5(1) fail | storage of building materials is not a rural business or service needing a countryside location (DL 9) · benefits (reuse of materials) substantially outweighed by adverse effects (DL 35) |
| Houghton Conquest Appeal 6009181, 8 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) fail | 3.93-year supply engages need, but site in a small cluster 400-500m from Houghton Conquest is not physically well-related (DL 26) |
| Chacewater Appeal 6007466, 8 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) fail | framed as the "material consideration of critical importance" given 3.9-yr supply; well-relatedness not expressly concluded; decided on the balance (DL 24, 30) |
| St Ewe Appeal 6005119, 8 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(c) fail S5(1)(j) fail | "even if this clause were considered to be activated", the dwelling would be disproportionately larger than the permitted but unbuilt dwelling (DL 20) · council lacks a 5-year supply so S5(1)(j)(i) considered, but site in open countryside is not physically well related to an existing settlement (DL 21) |
| Moreton Morrell Delegated 26/01558/FUL, 7 Sept 2026 | approved | S5(1)(d) pass S5(1)(c) fail | existing rural residential curtilage treated as previously developed land; officer notes (d) "contains no restrictions relating to the scale of a development" · replacement "significantly larger" (about 3.4x floorspace) and partly outside curtilage, so conflicts with (c) and CS.20 |
| Priors Hardwick Delegated 26/01211/FUL, 7 Sept 2026 | approved | S5(1)(c) pass | the extension onto agricultural land is "not … a disproportionate increase in size compared to the existing building" |
| Hollywood / Wythall Delegated 26/00845/PIP, 7 Sept 2026 | approved | S5(1)(j) pass | cited as the lens for the principle despite S5(5) excluding Green Belt land. An S5(5)-style approval was the effective outcome. |
| Gratwich Appeal 6010763, 7 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(a) fail | agricultural development outside settlements, but the benefits were "substantially outweighed" because the building was functionally unfit for purpose (DL 23) |
| Wisbech Appeal 6010682, 7 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1) fail | not within any S5(1) category; rural-worker essential need not evidenced (DL 11-13, 36) |
| Lymington Appeal 6008742, 7 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1) fail | not within any S5(1) category (DL 46) |
| Winterton Appeal 6007474, 7 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(g) fail | very limited evidence of broader Traveller need; level of need, supply and shortfall cannot be gauged, so no "evidenced unmet need" (DL 34, 38) |
| Furneux Pelham Appeal 6006819, 7 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) fail S5(1)(e) fail | unmet need accepted (3.4-3.7 yrs) but site "not suitably related to an existing settlement" and access to services "could not be accommodated by available infrastructure" (DL 27-28, 31) · not infill — site open on at least three sides (made under local policy VILL2/GBR2, S5(1)(e) not named) (DL 7) |
| Helston Appeal 6005328, 7 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(j) pass | invoked as "material consideration of critical importance" at 3.9 yrs; site adjoins Carnkie across road (Corbett) though outside it; no express 'well-related'/scale conclusion (DL 12-13, 21) |
| Northampton Appeal 6004385, 7 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(j) pass S5(1) pass | no 5YHLS (agreed); site adjacent to Northampton Related Development Area and two urban extensions across York Way; "physically well related" and scale accommodated (DL 105-108) · harm from plan conflict "would not substantially outweigh" benefits (DL 112) |
| Upper Moor Delegated W/26/01447/FUL, 4 Sept 2026 | refused | S5(1)(c) fail S5(1)(d) fail S5(1)(g) not-engaged | a replacement must be of a lawful existing building for the same use. Insufficient evidence that the straw-bale building (approved in 2002 for agricultural use only) was a lawful dwelling; an affidavit claimed about 5 years' residential occupation from 2012. · not the redevelopment of previously developed land · an open-market dwelling, not traveller accommodation; it would in fact replace an occupied traveller pitch |
| Cheltenham Appeal 6008569, 4 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j)(i) pass | 2.69-yr supply and HDT 56% = evidenced unmet need; adjoins cul-de-sac, opposite housing, walkable primary school and buses = physically well-related (DL 9-11) |
| Ugley Green Appeal 6008264, 4 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(e) fail | open field adjoining one curtilage on one side only — extends beyond the group rather than within it; unbuilt consented houses disregarded (DL 9-10) |
| Pirton Committee 25/02064/OP, 3 Sept 2026 | approved | S5(1)(j)(i) pass | 2.6-year supply; north and west boundaries shared with housing, recreation ground to south, hedgerow east; no infrastructure objections |
| Colgate Appeal 6009817, 3 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(b) fail | container storage for Horsham trades not dependent on a rural location and could be in employment areas; HDPF 26 "broadly consistent" with S5 (DL 6, 8, 11) |
| Cowan Bridge Appeal 6009367, 3 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(c) pass S5(1) pass | cited as "Policy S5(c)" — "secure the residential re-use of an existing lawful building without the need for substantial new construction … consistent with Policy S5(c) … I attach moderate weight to that benefit" (DL 12) · "the adverse effects arising from the proposal would not substantially outweigh its benefits when assessed against the national decision-making policies" (DL 13) |
| Great Easton Appeal 6008739, 3 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(e) fail S5(1)(j) fail | plot at terminal end of hamlet row, built form on one side only; extends the hamlet rather than infilling within it (DL 8-10) · 4.77-year supply engages (j) and need is met, but end-of-hamlet site separated from built-up areas by countryside is not physically well-related (DL 28) |
| Drakes Broughton Delegated W/26/01322/OUT, 2 Sept 2026 | refused | S5(1)(j) not-engaged | with a five-year supply (July 2026 report, 20% buffer), "none of the types of development set out within policy S5 are applicable" |
| Leigh Sinton Committee M/26/00885/FUL, 2 Sept 2026 | approved | S5(1)(a) not-engaged | the site is outside the Leigh Sinton development boundary, but the report never applies S5. Principle rests on SWDPR11 and on NDP LB/H/6, which requires about 5.5 ha of sports land alongside the adjoining housing allocation. Outdoor sport and recreation would fall within S5(1)(a). |
| Tollesbury Committee 26/00066/OUTM, 2 Sept 2026 | approved | S5(1)(j)(i) pass S5(1) pass | 4.1-year supply (appellant says 3.6); edge of 'larger village', development on two sides, no gap; infrastructure can accommodate with contributions · housing incl. 40% affordable substantial weight; landscape harm moderate; spatial-strategy conflict limited; not substantially outweighed |
| Burnham-on-Crouch Committee 26/00018/FULM, 2 Sept 2026 | approved | S5(1)(j)(i) pass | adjoins and is accessed through allocated Burnham-on-Crouch West scheme under construction; 4.1-year supply; infrastructure via S106/S278 |
| Whitfield Appeal 6009818, 2 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(a) fail | agriculture is an S5(1)(a) category, but without evidence of the scale/nature of the agricultural activity benefits cannot be quantified; substantially outweighed by design failure (DL 16-17) |
| Priors Hardwick Delegated 26/00898/FUL, 1 Sept 2026 | approved | S5(1)(c) pass S5(1)(j) pass | reuse of an existing lawful building of permanent and substantial construction with very modest additions · 2.21-year supply = evidenced unmet need; "physically well-related to an existing settlement" limb not separately examined for a village with no BUAB |
| Rockbeare Committee 26/0534/MOUT, 1 Sept 2026 | approved | S5(1)(j)(i) pass | 3.5-year supply; adjoins Cranbrook BUAB and allocated Grange Expansion Area (c.800 homes) |
| Abbeytown Appeal 6011045, 1 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(c) fail | replacement footprint more than twice the 150 sqm bungalow and about 572 sqm floor area; disproportionately larger "irrespective of the size of the host plot" (DL 23-25) |
| Pyworthy Appeal 6010166, 1 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(j) fail S5(1)(c) not-engaged | unmet need accepted (4.61 years) but site "some distance outside" Pyworthy and not well-related to a settlement, despite being near a few other houses (DL 13-15) · not argued; the inspector contrasts the policy support for conversion of rural buildings with a new-build dwelling (DL 19) |
| St Allen Appeal 6006832, 1 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(e) fail S5(1)(j) fail S5(1)(b) fail | lodges argued to be dwellings; Marazanvose is a 6/7-house low-density straggle, not a settlement; 50 lodges would overwhelm it (DL 26, 28-31) · no 5YHLS but not well-related / not of accommodable scale, and no unmet need for holiday accommodation shown; no weight (DL 30-31, 66) · rural tourism — no locational or business need for this site shown (DL 32, 34, 51) |
| Burn Appeal 6007535, 28 Aug 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(d) fail | PDL "offered support" but benefits substantially outweighed by adverse effects under the national decision-making policies; use does not need a rural location (DL 23) |
| Horsham Appeal 6009237, 27 Aug 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(g) fail S5(1)(d) not-engaged | in category (g) - 2.9-year pitch supply and unmet need (79 pitches, 50 in five years) - but benefits substantially outweighed by NL harm (DL 17-21, 33) · sand school is not previously developed land (DL 29) |
| Southam Committee 25/00346/OUT, 26 Aug 2026 | approved | S5(1)(j) pass | adjoins Main Rural Centre Southam; well related and of a scale Southam can accommodate |
| Kineton Delegated 26/01764/PIP, 25 Aug 2026 | approved | S5(1)(d) not-engaged | site accepted as PDL under the NPPF definition, but S5(1)(d) not expressly applied |
| Oxhill Delegated 26/01393/FUL, 25 Aug 2026 | approved | S5(1)(c) not-engaged | not considered; agricultural-to-residential rebuild is not a replacement "for the same use", so (c) would not obviously apply; approval rests on the Class Q fallback |
| Alderley Edge Appeal 6010751, 25 Aug 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(a) neutral | not expressly applied; agricultural need not evidenced under local RUR1 (no business plan, generic yield figures) (DL 5-16) |
| Copt Oak Appeal 6006388, 25 Aug 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(d) not-engaged S5(1)(c) not-engaged | not addressed as an S5 limb; PDL status unproven (lawful use agricultural vs equestrian disputed) in the context of LP S3(e) (DL 13-14) · reuse-of-existing-building limb not discussed despite the proposal being a conversion |
| Tintagel Appeal 6000903, 25 Aug 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(b) fail S5(1)(c) fail | rural tourism outside a settlement supported only where the location is shown to be necessary; appellant argued general tourism benefit but not why this site (DL 9, 11) · re-use of an existing building must be of permanent and substantial construction whatever the use is called; 2019 survey showed new steel frame, foundations and roof needed, so in substance a new building (DL 3, 12-19) |
| Henfield Appeal 6007104, 24 Aug 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(j) pass | 1.7-year supply; proposal complies with national decision-making policies; S5(j) "provides support" (DL 20-23) |
| Boughton Monchelsea Committee 26/501191/FULL, 20 Aug 2026 | refused | S5(1)(c) fail S5(1)(d) fail | officers — replacement of lawful permanent dwelling, eaves height comparable; members — 'disproportionate enlargement' (27 sqm to 151 sqm footprint) · officers — residential garden land is PDL under Annex B (2026); members did not accept |
| Peterborough Appeal 6010542, 20 Aug 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(c) pass S5(1) fail | re-use of an existing building of permanent and substantial construction; principle not in dispute (DL 23) · benefits (employment, farm diversification, moderate locational sustainability) did not justify approval given unresolved highway safety; DL 26 wording inverted (see body) |
| Tonbridge Committee TM/25/01976/PA, 19 Aug 2026 | approved | S5(1)(d) neutral | supplementary (applicant-drafted) table also claimed S5(1)(d)/(j) — but S5(5) excludes Green Belt; officers endorsed table |
| Newborough Appeal 6010986, 19 Aug 2026 | dismissed | S5(1)(c) not-engaged | re-use of existing building outside settlement not assessed under S5 — letter applies local settlement-boundary policy (DL 11-14); code mapped by harvester |
| Southminster Appeal 6005664, 18 Aug 2026 | allowed | S5(1)(j) pass S5(1)(h) pass | no 5YHLS (4.04 LPA / 3.6 appellant, "marginal difference being unimportant"); evidenced unmet need; well-related to Southminster; infrastructure via S106 and conditions (DL 44-45) · inspector paraphrased (h) as "residential development physically well-related to a settlement" of accommodable scale; the 2026 text of (h) is the well-connected-station limb, not analysed as such (no finding on "well-connected station" definition) — drafting slip (DL 45) |
| Bodmin Appeal 6007179, 17 Aug 2026 | dismissed | S5(1) fail | letter applies Local Plan Policy 3 rounding-off test; Dunmere a "low-density straggle", not a settlement; no Policy 7 special circumstances (DL 3-7). S5 not cited |
S5(2): a "should be refused" policy failed 31 decisions: 25 dismissed, 5 allowed, 1 approved #
The trigger that is "likely" to tip the S5(1) and S5(5) balances.
| Decision | Outcome | Finding | Note, as recorded in the case file |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fobbing Appeal 6008679, 2 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S5(2) fail | fails a "should be refused" policy, so benefits likely to be substantially outweighed (DL 45) |
| Weeton Appeal 6012202, 1 Oct 2026 | allowed | S5(2) not-engaged | no national decision-making policy indicates the proposal should be refused (DL 20) |
| Remenham Appeal 6011062, 1 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S5(2) fail | DP3 is a policy that says development should be refused, so benefits found to be substantially outweighed; conflict with S5 (DL 45) |
| Brigsley Appeal 6009363, 1 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S5(2) fail | conflict with L3, a "should be refused" policy, with the TR3 and N2 conflicts, means the benefits are likely to be substantially outweighed (DL 6, 24) |
| Balne Appeal 6010112, 30 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(2) fail | HO11 treated as engaged through S5(2) and S5(5) even though S5(3) is not (DL 18-19) |
| Chapel-en-le-Frith Appeal 6009410, 30 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(2) pass | no conflict with any Framework "should be refused" policy (DL 22) |
| Spurstow Appeal 6009407, 30 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(2) fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 51-52) |
| Brenzett Appeal 6007677, 30 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(2) fail | DP3(3) failure routed through S5(2); benefits substantially outweighed (DL 26-27) |
| Hildenborough Appeal 6010459, 29 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(2) not-engaged | no failure of a national policy that says proposals should be refused (DL 29) |
| Devon Appeal 6009619, 29 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(2) pass | no conflict with any "should be refused" policy - L3(4), DP3(3), TR6(4), F6(1), F7(2), N2(2), N6(1)(a), N6(2), HE6(5) listed and checked (DL 14, 16) |
| Singleborough Appeal 6008773, 29 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(2) fail | benefits substantially outweighed by the adverse effects; presumption does not apply (DL 28, 33) |
| Wimbish Appeal 6008762, 28 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(2) fail | S5(2) set out; moderate housing and limited other benefits substantially outweighed (DL 36, 41) |
| Bilsborrow Appeal 6007133, 25 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(2) fail | fails a "should be refused" policy, so benefits likely substantially outweighed; location unsuitable (DL 58) |
| Turves Appeal 6011235, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(2) fail | conflict with "should be refused" policies found (DL 30); benefits substantially outweighed (DL 31) |
| Great Brington Appeal 6010826, 22 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(2) fail | DP3 is a refuse-in-specific-circumstances policy; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 25-26) |
| Trimingham Appeal 6008881, 22 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(2) fail | benefits substantially outweighed; F9 is a should-not-take-place policy (DL 21, 24) |
| Shrewsbury Appeal 6008785, 22 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(2) fail | DP3(3) refusal trigger means benefits substantially outweighed; presumption in S5 does not apply (DL 39, 42) |
| Puxton Appeal 6006629, 22 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(2) fail | failure of a "should be refused" national policy (F6) means benefits are likely to be substantially outweighed (DL 28, 36) |
| Theydon Bois Appeal 6006761, 21 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(2) fail | conflict with a refusal-directing policy (TR6(4)), so benefits substantially outweighed (DL 33-36) |
| Ockley Appeal 6011498, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(2) fail | adverse effects contrary to DP3; no meaningful benefits beyond the original permission (DL 54, 57) |
| Spalding Appeal 6009598, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(2) fail | F-policy failure engages S5(2) - benefits substantially outweighed (DL 31-33) |
| Chatteris Appeal 6008500, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(2) fail | F5 failure is a refuse-trigger that makes it likely benefits are substantially outweighed (DL 38, 41) |
| Milford Appeal 6007130, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(2) fail | conflict with policies saying proposals "should be refused" means benefits substantially outweighed (DL 19-20, 26) |
| Martin Hussingtree Appeal 6008404, 17 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(2) fail | failure of N2 (a policy requiring refusal) plus plan conflict → adverse effects substantially outweigh benefits (DL 49-50) |
| Great Eccleston Appeal 6008848, 15 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(2) fail | failure to comply with TR6(4) is a "refusal in specific circumstances" policy, so benefits substantially outweighed (DL 25-28) |
| Walton Highway Appeal 6011256, 14 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(2) fail | failure to comply with TR6 is a circumstance where benefits are likely to be substantially outweighed; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 20-21) |
| Woolley Moor Appeal 6011648, 11 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(2) fail | DP3(3) is a refusal-in-specific-circumstances policy; benefits (limited) substantially outweighed (DL 18-19) |
| Little Haywood Appeal 6011209, 7 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(2) fail | TR6 "clear that development proposals should be refused" on unacceptable highway safety impact; moderate benefits (service, diversification) outweighed (DL 18) |
| Wisbech Appeal 6010682, 7 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(2) fail | flood policy failure treated as S5(2) refusal circumstance; S5(4) exceptional circumstances then not assessed (DL 36-37) |
| Pirton Committee 25/02064/OP, 3 Sept 2026 | approved | S5(2) not-engaged | no national 'should be refused' policy engaged (TR6, flood, heritage, biodiversity) |
| Southminster Appeal 6005664, 18 Aug 2026 | allowed | S5(2) not-engaged | no national "should be refused" policy applies (DL 45) |
S5(4): outside every category, "exceptional circumstances" 46 decisions: 40 dismissed, 3 allowed, 2 refused, 1 approved #
The reversed test. The benefits must substantially outweigh the adverse effects.
| Decision | Outcome | Finding | Note, as recorded in the case file |
|---|---|---|---|
| St Agnes Appeal 6008432, 2 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | no S5(1) category met; benefits do not substantially outweigh the harm, including to sustainable patterns of movement (DL 33) |
| Glentham Appeal 6011337, 1 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | no exceptional circumstances; benefits do not substantially outweigh harm to countryside character and sustainable patterns of movement (DL 22, 32) |
| Great Casterton (HO11(e) earth-sheltered house) Appeal 6010934, 30 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | combined harms very substantial weight; adverse effects substantially outweigh benefits; no exceptional circumstances (DL 32, 50-51) |
| Melksham Appeal 6007352, 30 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | benefits do not substantially outweigh adverse effects; no exceptional circumstances; S3 presumption does not apply (DL 28, 31) |
| Harpley Appeal 6010422, 29 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | benefits do not substantially outweigh the adverse effects; no exceptional circumstances (DL 43, 51) |
| Inkberrow Appeal 6009011, 29 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | exceptional circumstances test stated correctly at DL 43; concluded at DL 49 in S5(1) form (benefits substantially outweighed) |
| Upton St Leonards Appeal 6005652, 29 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | benefits would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects, including countryside character and sustainable movement (DL 40) |
| Winsford Appeal 6012304, 28 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | no exceptional circumstances; benefits do not substantially outweigh (DL 30, 33) |
| Crewe Appeal 6010642, 28 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | benefits limited; do not substantially outweigh adverse effects (DL 25-27) |
| Boughton Monchelsea Appeal 6007158, 28 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | no exceptional circumstances; benefits of one dwelling do not substantially outweigh (DL 45-47) |
| Welland Appeal 6006722, 28 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | no S5(1) category; modest housing and spending benefits do not substantially outweigh the harm from the unsustainable location (DL 35-37) |
| Bobbing Appeal 6010408, 25 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | no exceptional circumstances; benefits (12 jobs, temporary nature) given minimal weight (DL 18-20, 24) |
| Poundstock Appeal 6010020, 24 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | substantial weight to the secured custom-build unit, very limited to other benefits; no exceptional circumstances against very substantial character harm (DL 22-23) |
| Pickwell Appeal 6008693, 24 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | benefits "modest" with a 7.6-year supply; no exceptional circumstances (DL 22) |
| Aston Clinton Appeal 6008253, 24 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(4) pass | exceptional circumstances; substantial benefits substantially outweigh moderate countryside harm (DL 81, 85) |
| Morchard Bishop Appeal 6012985, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | benefits do not substantially outweigh harm to sustainable patterns of movement (substantial weight) (DL 18-22) |
| Bridgnorth Appeal 6008804, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | no exceptional circumstances; benefits do not substantially outweigh harm (DL 19) |
| Henfield Appeal 6006961, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | benefits would not substantially outweigh the harm to character and appearance, even taking a pragmatic view of access to sustainable transport (DL 33-35) |
| Fairlight Appeal 6008634, 22 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | HO7 benefit (2.63-2.79 years, HDT 35%) does not substantially outweigh significant-weight tourism-loss conflict (DL 16-18) |
| Gringley-on-the-Hill Appeal 6006950, 22 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | benefits substantially outweighed; no exceptional circumstances (DL 32, 50) |
| East Horsley Appeal 6011694, 21 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(4) pass | cited as "Part 4 of ... Policy S3"; exceptional circumstances - benefits substantially outweigh car-dependence harm, tempered by sawmill traffic fallback (DL 28-37) |
| Cliffe Woods Appeal 6004691, 21 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | no S5 category met; benefits do not substantially outweigh; no exceptional circumstances (DL 26, 29) |
| Coryates Appeal 6010834, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | benefits "very limited"; not exceptional circumstances; substantially outweighed (DL 29-31) |
| Ripon Appeal 6010348, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | fallback (significant weight), access (moderate), highway support (limited), energy/housing (little) do not substantially outweigh harm (DL 26-29) |
| Stogursey Appeal 6010090, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | outside all categories; benefits very limited, even with HO7 substantial weight, nowhere near substantially outweighing harm (DL 19) |
| Rudgwick Appeal 6009474, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | benefits do not substantially outweigh numerous adverse effects (DL 55-57) |
| Chatteris Appeal 6008500, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | no exceptional circumstances; personal benefits limited (DL 38, 40-41) |
| Findon Appeal 6006900, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | outside all categories; benefits do not substantially outweigh harm (DL 27-29) |
| Chavel Appeal 6011150, 17 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | benefits do not substantially outweigh adverse effects; no exceptional circumstances (DL 32, 36) |
| Wilbarston Appeal 6010401, 17 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | limited benefits plus Class Q fallback (significant weight) not exceptional circumstances substantially outweighing countryside character harm (DL 14-21) |
| Pinvin Delegated W/26/00329/FUL, 16 Sept 2026 | approved | S5(4) pass | the Class Q fallback (W/24/02591/GPDQ, Feb 2025) is given considerable weight and justifies a departure |
| South Creake Appeal 6010354, 16 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | 1.7 km from a Tier 5 village; one fewer car-dependent home than the Class Q fallback is a modest gain, outweighed by prominent countryside character harm (DL 22-27) |
| Bolney Appeal 6009838, 16 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | benefits do not substantially outweigh considerable-weight harms - no exceptional circumstances (DL 44-49) |
| Broadway Delegated W/26/01874/PIP, 14 Sept 2026 | refused | S5(4) fail | benefits "very modest"; not exceptional |
| Cople Appeal 6011253, 14 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(4) pass | "benefits of the proposal would substantially outweigh the adverse effects" (DL 27) |
| Roche Appeal 6010442, 14 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | benefits do not substantially outweigh harm (DL 20-21) |
| Castle Bytham Appeal 6007403, 11 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | modest benefits of 3 homes do not substantially outweigh CA harm; no exceptional circumstances (DL 23) |
| Ansty Appeal 6011079, 10 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | benefits "of a high order" do not substantially outweigh the adverse effects; no exceptional circumstances (DL 35) |
| Houghton Conquest Appeal 6009181, 8 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | HO7 substantial weight for six homes does not substantially outweigh considerable-weight character and highway harms (DL 28) |
| Winterton Appeal 6007474, 7 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | no exceptional circumstances where benefits substantially outweigh adverse effects (DL 38) |
| Colgate Appeal 6009817, 3 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | outside S5 categories; benefits (affordable storage, staff retention) do not substantially outweigh harm (DL 23) |
| Great Easton Appeal 6008739, 3 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | limited benefits do not substantially outweigh significant location harm and moderate character harm (DL 36-39) |
| Drakes Broughton Delegated W/26/01322/OUT, 2 Sept 2026 | refused | S5(4) fail | no exceptional circumstances; the benefits do not "substantially outweigh" the adverse effects |
| Abbeytown Appeal 6011045, 1 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | modern-living, homeworking and noise benefits given moderate weight; no evidence the size was necessary; do not substantially outweigh character and protected-species harm (DL 26-28) |
| Pyworthy Appeal 6010166, 1 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | one dwelling (even as windfall/self-build), construction and spend benefits, modest BNG - not exceptional circumstances (DL 16-18, 29) |
| Tintagel Appeal 6000903, 25 Aug 2026 | dismissed | S5(4) fail | outside all S5(1) categories; no exceptional circumstances; limited benefits well short of "substantially outweigh" (DL 28) |
S5(5): Green Belt, not inappropriate 44 decisions: 23 dismissed, 13 allowed, 4 refused, 4 approved #
The presumption restored for development that passes GB7, applying the S5(2) trigger.
| Decision | Outcome | Finding | Note, as recorded in the case file |
|---|---|---|---|
| Earlswood Delegated 26/01542/FUL, 2 Oct 2026 | refused | S5(5) fail | not inappropriate, so "should be granted unless benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (p.13); refused on that balance, though the concluding sentence is worded the wrong way round |
| St Leonards and St Ives Appeal 6012115, 2 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S5(5) not-engaged | inappropriate and no VSC, so "policy S5 of the Framework is not engaged" (DL 25) |
| Monks Heath Appeal 6010578, 2 Oct 2026 | allowed | S5(5) pass | not inappropriate, so approve unless benefits substantially outweighed, applying S5(2); benefits "not outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL 33-34) |
| Fobbing Appeal 6008679, 2 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S5(5) fail | not inappropriate, so approve unless benefits substantially outweighed, applying S5(2); benefits substantially outweighed by the character harm (DL 44, 46) |
| Burnham Appeal 6005162, 2 Oct 2026 | allowed | S5(5) pass | not inappropriate, so approve unless benefits substantially outweighed, applying S5(2); no trigger policy failed (DL 44-45) |
| Hitchin Appeal 6009720, 1 Oct 2026 | allowed | S5(5) pass | not inappropriate, so approve unless benefits substantially outweighed; no adverse effects found (DL 28, 31) |
| Canewdon Appeal 6008122, 1 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S5(5) fail | not inappropriate, but benefits substantially outweighed by the BNG and N2 conflict (DL 21, 23) |
| Underriver Appeal 6004899, 1 Oct 2026 | allowed | S5(5) pass | not inappropriate, so approve unless benefits substantially outweighed, applying S5(2); no adverse effects and no trigger policy failed (DL 31, 33) |
| Balne Appeal 6010112, 30 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(5) fail | not inappropriate, but the HO11 conflict substantially outweighs the benefits (DL 30, 34) |
| Linthwaite Appeal 6006003, 30 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(5) fail | S5(5) with S5(2) applied; DP3(3) failure means benefits substantially outweighed (DL 32-33) |
| Hildenborough Appeal 6010459, 29 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(5) pass | not inappropriate, so approve unless benefits substantially outweighed, applying S5(2); benefits not substantially outweighed (DL 28-29) |
| Newcastle-under-Lyme Appeal 6007668, 29 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(5) not-engaged | S5 does not apply to inappropriate Green Belt development (DL 31) |
| Kings Coughton Delegated 26/01447/FUL, 28 Sept 2026 | approved | S5(5) not-engaged | "Policy S5 does not apply to sites within the Green Belt" (p.3); inappropriate development, so no S5(5) balance |
| Langley Appeal 6010253, 28 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(5) not-engaged | presumption does not apply to inappropriate Green Belt development without VSC (DL 37) |
| Navestock Appeal 6009849, 28 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(5) pass | S5 directs to GB6-GB8, then S5(2); no "should be refused" policy breached; benefits not substantially outweighed (DL 36-40) |
| Ware Appeal 6006224, 28 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(5) not-engaged | S5 does not apply in the Green Belt; decided under GB6/GB7 (DL 29) |
| Luddenden Appeal 6011008, 25 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(5) fail | not inappropriate, then S5(5) with S5(2); heritage harm not outweighed means benefits substantially outweighed (DL 30-33) |
| South Staffordshire Appeal 6010537, 25 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(5) pass | conclusion first framed as harm would not "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" (2024 wording, DL 47), then S5(5) stated correctly (DL 48) |
| Chaldon Appeal 6006497, 25 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(5) pass | not inappropriate, no should-be-refused policy engaged, so approve unless benefits substantially outweighed; they were not (DL 50-51, 69) |
| Earlswood Delegated 26/01614/FUL, 24 Sept 2026 | refused | S5(5) not-engaged | S5 "does not apply to development proposals within the Green Belt"; assessed under GB6 and GB7 (p.2); the scheme was inappropriate, so no S5(5) balance |
| North Weald Bassett Appeal 6009621, 24 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(5) fail | GB7 first; not inappropriate; then S5(2) trigger and benefits substantially outweighed (DL 39-41) |
| Lydiate Appeal 6008723, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(5) not-engaged | inappropriate GB development, so no presumption (DL 32-33) |
| Tarleton Appeal 6007484, 23 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(5) pass | letter says the proposal accords with the approach in Policy S5; benefits not substantially outweighed by the BMV harm (DL 31) |
| Halton Appeal 3378663, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(5) neutral | site outside a settlement boundary, so S5(5) sends Green Belt proposals to GB6/GB7 (DL 29) |
| Copthorne Appeal 6011736, 22 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(5) not-engaged | S5 does not apply; determined under GB6/GB7; presumption not engaged (DL 19) |
| Halsall Appeal 6007428, 22 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(5) not-engaged | S5(5) balance applies only to development that is not inappropriate (DL 28) |
| Higher Poynton Appeal 6010471, 21 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(5) pass | not inappropriate, so approve unless benefits substantially outweighed; not outweighed (DL 36-37) |
| Knockholt/Halstead Appeal 6007121, 21 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(5) fail | benefits did not outweigh low-density harm; presumption did not apply (DL 26-28) |
| Astwood Bank Delegated W/26/01639/PIP, 18 Sept 2026 | refused | S5(5) not-engaged | S5 does not apply in the Green Belt; the proposal is taken to GB6/GB7 |
| Stonnall Delegated 26/00855/OUT, 18 Sept 2026 | approved | S5(5) pass | once not inappropriate under GB7, "should be approved unless the benefits … would be substantially outweighed" |
| Newchapel Appeal 6011972, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(5) not-engaged | S5 does not apply to Green Belt proposals that are inappropriate; decide under GB6/GB7; presumption does not apply (DL 19) |
| South Nutfield Appeal 6009966, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(5) not-engaged | inappropriate GB development gets no presumption; S5(5) only applies if not inappropriate after GB7 (DL 49-50) |
| Banks Appeal 6011231, 15 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(5) pass | not inappropriate in the GB outside settlements → approve unless substantially outweighed; locational harm did not substantially outweigh (DL 29-33) |
| Scarisbrick Appeal 6006286, 14 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(5) fail | not-inappropriate route leads to "substantially outweighed" balance; flood risk substantially outweighs moderate housing benefit (DL 27-29) |
| Tanworth-in-Arden Committee 26/00918/PIP, 11 Sept 2026 | approved | S5(5) pass | not inappropriate, so approve unless benefits substantially outweighed |
| Albrighton Appeal 6010260, 11 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(5) not-engaged | S5 does not apply in Green Belt unless the proposal is not inappropriate under GB7 (DL 19) |
| Heald Green Appeal 6005877, 11 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(5) pass | not inappropriate → S5(5) engaged; no adverse effects substantially outweigh moderate benefits (DL 26-27) |
| North Weald Bassett Appeal 6007030, 10 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(5) not-engaged | fails GB6/GB7 so S5 does not apply (DL 20) |
| Mangotsfield Appeal 3378284, 4 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(5) pass | GB site not inappropriate so S5 "substantially outweighed" test applied; no adverse effects under national policies (DL 69-70) |
| Keynsham Committee 25/04952/EOUT, 2 Sept 2026 | approved | S5(5) pass | harms (limited/moderate/limited) do not substantially outweigh benefits; S5(2) not triggered |
| Rayleigh Appeal 3372995, 2 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(5) fail | benefits "substantially outweighed" by adverse effects under the Framework presumption (DL 43) |
| South Godstone Appeal 6004344, 27 Aug 2026 | dismissed | S5(5) fail | not inappropriate so S5(5) applied, but letter uses old "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" wording (DL 31) |
| Carpenders Park Committee 25/2168/OUT, 20 Aug 2026 | refused | S5(5) not-engaged | officers' route (not inappropriate → S5(5) 'substantially outweighed') rejected by members |
| Bagnall Appeal 6008539, 18 Aug 2026 | dismissed | S5(5) not-engaged | noted S5 does not apply in Green Belt (DL 3) |
S5 without a limb stated 40 decisions: 33 dismissed, 4 allowed, 3 approved #
Letters that applied S5 as a whole.
| Decision | Outcome | Finding | Note, as recorded in the case file |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ross-on-Wye Appeal 6002708, 1 Oct 2026 | dismissed | S5 fail | benefits substantially outweighed by the adverse effects; no S5(1) category identified (DL 41) |
| Great Casterton (HO11(e) earth-sheltered house) Appeal 6010934, 30 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(3) fail | agreed isolated home, so only HO11 applies (DL 8, 10) |
| Balne Appeal 6010112, 30 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(3) not-engaged | S5(3) does not apply in the Green Belt, but the home is found to be isolated on the same definition (not within a group of houses or a settlement) (DL 7, 19) |
| North Cotes Appeal 6009106, 30 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5 not-engaged | site outside the built-up part of North Cotes, detached, no footway and mostly unlit; S3/S5 not named and no S5(1) category or S5(4) test run; balance framed as adverse consequences "outweigh" benefits (DL 7, 18) |
| Fenny Compton Delegated 26/01801/FUL, 29 Sept 2026 | approved | S5(3) pass | isolated-homes rule cited; routed to HO11 (p.6) |
| Devon Appeal 6009619, 29 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(3) not-engaged | part of a group of houses and a Methodist church, so not isolated; HO11 not triggered (DL 4, 20) |
| Singleborough Appeal 6008773, 29 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(3) pass | not isolated given relationship with surroundings (DL 7) |
| Upton St Leonards Appeal 6005652, 29 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(3) fail | isolated home (outside settlements or groups of houses), so only HO11 can support it (DL 31) |
| Lea Appeal 6001896, 28 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5 fail | benefits "substantially outweighed" by the heritage harm; the letter does not decide whether the site is inside or outside a settlement, or identify an S5(1) category, and says the result would be the same under S4 (DL 30-31) |
| Hough-on-the-Hill Appeal 6011585, 24 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5 fail | site outside the settlement; (j) unmet need noted (no five-year supply) but not resolved; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 35-38) |
| Tibenham Appeal 6010418, 24 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5 fail | concluded in 2024 wording - harm would significantly and demonstrably outweigh benefits (DL 24) |
| Hurst Green Appeal 6009691, 24 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5 fail | benefits substantially outweighed; S5 introduced by reference to lack of 5-year supply; no S5(1) category or S5(4) route identified (DL 18, 22) |
| Morchard Bishop Appeal 6012985, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(3) conflict | no overriding sense of isolation, but isolated from Morchard Bishop in LP and Framework terms; no HO11 circumstance applies (DL 7, 10, 18) |
| Uffculme Appeal 6011431, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(3) not-engaged | not isolated - next to health hub, pub, caravan park, dwellings, garden centre; LP text treating everything outside boundaries as isolated not followed (DL 7-8) |
| Fairlight Appeal 6008634, 22 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(3) fail | appellant accepts isolated location; S5(3) overrides the S5(1)(c) reuse category argued by the appellant (DL 9, 11) |
| East Horsley Appeal 6011694, 21 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5(3) conflict | cited as "S3(3)"; isolated homes; conversion meets HO11(c) but the two new-build dwellings do not (DL 26-27) |
| Billingshurst Appeal 6010187, 21 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(3) fail | agreed isolated home, so HO11 governs (DL 7-8, 27) |
| Kirtlington Appeal 6009985, 21 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(3) fail | not within a group of houses and not well-related - isolated homes; HO11 not met (no evidence building redundant/disused, no enhancement of setting) (DL 30-31) |
| Fordingbridge Appeal 6008115, 21 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(3) fail | not in a settlement or group of houses (dwellings only across the lane); isolated from any meaningful settlement (DL 26-27) |
| Stogursey Appeal 6010090, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(3) fail | isolated home; none of the HO11 clauses met (DL 18) |
| Chatteris Appeal 6008500, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(3) not-engaged | proximate to existing built form, not isolated (DL 21) |
| Leire Appeal 6009409, 17 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(3) fail | outside any settlement or group of houses - isolated dwelling, no HO11 circumstance (DL 20) |
| Pinvin Delegated W/26/00329/FUL, 16 Sept 2026 | approved | S5(3) pass | close to another dwelling, so not strictly an isolated home |
| Beare Green Appeal 6008528, 16 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5 not-engaged | S5 is a general outside-settlements policy and does not displace the specific GB7 provisions (DL 8) |
| Luton Appeal 6007334, 15 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5 fail | breach of Habitats Regs / PIP Order "weight of a very high order" → substantially outweighs benefits for any number in range (DL 30-32) |
| Naunton Beauchamp Delegated W/26/01828/PIP, 14 Sept 2026 | approved | S5(3) pass | not an isolated home |
| Ledbury Appeal 6011314, 14 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5 fail | benefits substantially outweighed by adverse effects assessed against the Framework, relying on HE6(1)/(3) and DP3(3) (DL 44-49) |
| Elmstone Appeal 6006123, 14 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5 fail | no S5(1) limb analysed; inspector read S5 as requiring settlement location, HO11 compliance or station proximity; S5(1)(c) reuse and S5(1)(d) PDL change of use to residential not considered despite lawful light-industrial use (DL 11, 20) |
| Hockwold cum Wilton Appeal 6008895, 11 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(3) conflict | isolated home not approved other than per HO11 (DL 13, 56) |
| Biddulph Moor Appeal 6011103, 7 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5 pass | adverse effects would not substantially outweigh benefits; presumption applies (DL 32-34) |
| Brocton Appeal 6010165, 7 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5 not-engaged | Inspector says S5 is not engaged once VSC fails (DL 21); consistent with S5(5) routing GB proposals to GB6-GB8 |
| Lymington Appeal 6008742, 7 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(3) fail | isolated - even if part of an established rural landholding, not within groups of houses; no HO11 circumstance (DL 46-47) |
| Winterton Appeal 6007474, 7 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(3) fail | isolated homes, remote from settlements and groups of houses, even with other caravans on the wider plotted site (DL 10) |
| Tidmarsh Appeal 6009718, 4 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(3) fail | site "close to, rather than within" a group of houses - isolated homes; no HO11 criterion met; applies "irrespective of whether" PDL (DL 60-61) |
| Ugley Green Appeal 6008264, 4 Sept 2026 | allowed | S5 conflict | "only certain forms of development should be approved outside settlements" (DL 21) |
| Abbeytown Appeal 6011045, 1 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S5(3) not-engaged | agreed the site is not isolated, though outside any defined settlement; HO11 argument not needed (DL 20) |
| Tintagel Appeal 6000903, 25 Aug 2026 | dismissed | S5(3) neutral | if the unit is a dwelling it would be an isolated home, engaging HO11; not resolved because S5(1)(c) applies either way (DL 12) |
| Great Henny Appeal 6009270, 24 Aug 2026 | dismissed | S5 fail | decided under 2024 NPPF para 11(c)/(d) (maps to S3-S5); countryside policy LPP1 up to date; no reason for the location; car-dependent (DL 5-6, 11) |
| Okewood Hill Appeal 6007601, 20 Aug 2026 | dismissed | S5(3) fail | isolated homes only in accordance with HO11, so no presumption under S3 (DL 27) |
| Ulleskelf Appeal 6010426, 17 Aug 2026 | dismissed | S5 not-engaged | decided under 2024 para 11(d)(ii) tilted balance - "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" (DL 18, 22) |
S6: a recent neighbourhood plan with allocations 19 decisions: 8 approved, 5 dismissed, 3 refused, 3 allowed #
Housing in conflict with such a plan is "likely" to lose the balance. Most rows record that the plan was too old or had no allocations, so S6 was not engaged.
| Decision | Outcome | Finding | Note, as recorded in the case file |
|---|---|---|---|
| Earlswood Delegated 26/01542/FUL, 2 Oct 2026 | refused | S6 not-engaged | neighbourhood plan made 2022 with no housing allocations (p.4) |
| Stratford-upon-Avon Delegated 26/01141/FUL, 2 Oct 2026 | approved | S6 not-engaged | neighbourhood plan made December 2018 (p.7) |
| Fenny Compton Delegated 26/01801/FUL, 29 Sept 2026 | approved | S6 not-engaged | neighbourhood plan made 2023 "but does not contain housing allocations (as detailed in the Interim Policy Position Statement)" (p.7) |
| Pickwell Appeal 6008693, 24 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S6 not-engaged | neighbourhood plan made more than five years ago; the letter describes S6 as weighing "in favour of the benefits of housing proposals over any conflict", which inverts S6 (DL 23) |
| Buntingford Appeal 6008238, 24 Sept 2026 | allowed | S6 not-engaged | neighbourhood plan made in 2017, more than five years old (DL 27) |
| Sheepy Parva Appeal 6009220, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S6 fail | conflict with NP; NP said to have become part of development plan five years or less ago and to contain allocations meeting its requirement, so benefits likely substantially outweighed (DL 13-15) — but DL 7 calls it the "2019" NP |
| Henfield Appeal 6006961, 23 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S6 not-engaged | Henfield Neighbourhood Plan passed five years in June 2026, so S6 no longer applies (DL 36) |
| Long Marston Delegated 26/01906/PIP, 22 Sept 2026 | approved | S6 accord | officer states Long Marston NDP is within 5 years and has sufficient allocations, so S6 would bite on any conflict; scheme accords with DEV3 (within BUAB) |
| Pitstone Appeal 6010848, 18 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S6 not-engaged | neighbourhood plan made 2016, more than five years old (DL 33) |
| Tanworth-in-Arden Committee 26/00918/PIP, 11 Sept 2026 | approved | S6 not-engaged | NDP made 2022 but has no allocations meeting its requirement |
| Welford-on-Avon Committee 26/00772/PIP, 10 Sept 2026 | approved | S6 not-engaged | NDP made 2017 |
| Snitterfield Committee 26/00617/PIP, 10 Sept 2026 | approved | S6 not-engaged | NDP made 2018 with no allocations |
| Menheniot Appeal 6007431, 10 Sept 2026 | dismissed | S6(1) fail | NP made April 2022 (within 5 years) with allocations meeting its identified requirement; allocations not yet built but no evidence they cannot be delivered; conflict with NP Policy 1 given substantial weight (DL 21-23) |
| Kislingbury Committee WNS/2022/0673/MAF, 8 Sept 2026 | refused | S6 not-engaged | the 2017 neighbourhood plan is more than five years old, so its boundary and allocation conflict gets very limited weight |
| Biddulph Moor Appeal 6011103, 7 Sept 2026 | allowed | S6 neutral | no evidence to assess; even if engaged benefits outweigh (DL 33) |
| Rockbeare Committee 26/0534/MOUT, 1 Sept 2026 | approved | S6 not-engaged | Rockbeare NP made Oct 2018 (more than five years old), so conflict with NP Green Wedge and development-limit policies does not trigger S6 |
| Ilmington Delegated 26/01399/PIP, 28 Aug 2026 | refused | S6 neutral | IPPS treats Ilmington NDP (made July 2021, with allocations) as "in date"; significant weight to NDP |
| Southam Committee 25/00346/OUT, 26 Aug 2026 | approved | S6 not-engaged | Southam NDP made 11 Jul 2023 with allocations, but allocations treated as out of date under the IPPS (June 2026), so the allocations limb failed (decided under the old para 14 wording) |
| Henfield Appeal 6007104, 24 Aug 2026 | allowed | S6 not-engaged | S6(a) fails because the HNP was made 23 June 2021, more than 5 years before the decision; S6(b) met (allocations exceed the 270 requirement); NP requirement no longer a credible indicator of need (DL 28-34) |