Settlement hierarchy · National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), August 2026
Service Village Does Not Mean Sustainable
A settlement hierarchy is a ranking of villages, made for the local plan. Under the 2024 NPPF it was a fair stand-in for "sustainable location". Under the August 2026 NPPF it cannot carry the point on its own. Whether a site is sustainable is decided on the route, under Policy TR3.
1,064decisions in the dataset sweptand all 1,508 appeal letters, as at 2 October 2026
109mention a settlement-tier hierarchy203 matched the search; 94 mention services only
0allowed by an inspector on the tier alone16 cite the tier in support beside route evidence
The tier still gets cited, but on its own it has never carried a site with a poor route. In every allowed case the inspector also had a bus service, lit footways or an urban setting to point to.
What it is
A ranking
The council scores its villages on size and a few services, then ranks them so the plan can send more housing to the better-served ones.
"It effectively ranks them so that housing is directed to the largest settlements with facilities…"Stratford Core Strategy Inspector, 2016, ¶271
NPPF, December 2024
A fair proxy
The Framework backed village growth and told decision-makers to allow for rural transport. A village's tier was a reasonable shorthand.
"opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making."NPPF 2024, ¶110
NPPF, August 2026
Little weight on its own
That sentence is gone. Each site now gets a route test, and the tier cannot answer it by itself. The one rural clause left, TR3(1)(e), asks applicants to improve connectivity; it is not an allowance for car use.
"limit the need to travel, particularly by private car, and offer a genuine choice of transport modes"NPPF 2026, TR3(1)(a)
How much weight does the 2026 NPPF give the hierarchy?
There are four ways the tier could enter a decision. It survives as plan policy, and as a label inspectors cite beside route evidence. It decides none of them on its own.
In the Framework itselfwhole text
None
"Settlement hierarchy", "service village" and "service centre" never appear. The village-growth policy HO6(1)(b) is a plan-making policy, and ¶8 says "the plan-making policies should not be used when making decisions on development proposals."
As local plan policys.38(6), Annex A(2)
Plan accordance
A site inside a service village's boundary accords with the plan's spatial strategy, and that counts under s.38(6). The weight is the plan's, not the tier's: parts of a policy "which are materially inconsistent with national decision-making policies in this Framework should be given very limited weight." Stratford decisions under the 2026 Framework now treat Core Strategy policies CS.15, CS.16 and AS.10 in exactly that way.
Inside or outside a "settlement"Annex B → S4 or S5
Not the tier
Plan boundaries can count; the tier does not. And the definition "exclude[s] villages which lie within and are defined as part of the Green Belt", whatever their tier.
Sustainable locationTR3, and GB7(1)(g)(iii) in the Green Belt
Not on its own
TR3 asks about a genuine choice of transport modes on the actual journey, and TR3(2) says the government's Connectivity Tool should be used. Inspectors do cite a village's tier when they find a location sustainable, but in every allowed case they also had a bus service, lit footways or an urban setting to point to. Where the route was poor, as at Findon and Welland, the tier did not save the site.
On the question that matters most, whether this site is sustainable, the hierarchy cannot carry the answer. The route has to.
What "Category 3" actually measured
Claverdon · Stratford's 2014 scoring
Size2
Shop1
Primary school3
Public transport0
Total 6 → Category 3 (5–7)of 12
Stratford's Local Service Villages (LSVs) are scored on four things: size, a shop, a primary school and public transport. Claverdon reached Category 3 on its school and its size.
On public transport it scored zero.
TR3 applies to every site, whatever the tier. But the lower the tier, the less the label says about getting around without a car. At Category 3 in Claverdon it says nothing, so the answer has to come from the route.
Inspectors decide on the route
Appeals under the 2026 Framework, dismissed because the walk failed. A named service village, a Category 1 village, or a station close by, did not save them. A sweep of every decision in the dataset, below, found that only 203 mention a settlement-tier label (109 in the hierarchy sense). No appeal in the dataset was allowed on the tier alone. In every allowed case the tier sat beside route evidence: a daily or better bus, lit footways or an urban setting. Where the route was poor, the label did not save the site.
WellandDismissed
"The village is a Category 1 settlement, with a range of services and public transport connections" … "I crossed the 30mph carriageway and walked along the unlit footpath (on the opposite side of the street) to the village centre" … "heavily reliant upon the private car".
The other side of the ledger. The tier was cited in favour in allowed appeals too, and the route evidence beside it is the tell: 6010973 Broadwas (Category 2, a daily bus; car reliance "no different for the residents of the appeal site and the residents of existing housing in the village"), 6011103 Biddulph Moor (larger village, lit footways), 6006497 Chaldon (Connectivity Tool band A, benchmarked against Category 2 settlements), 6008253 Aston Clinton (location agreed on a Transport Assessment; the highway authority called the 840 m walk to the bus stops "excessive" and took a bus contribution and a new footway). One Green Belt case passed GB7(1)(g)(iii) with no route facts at all: 6007484 Tarleton, where car reliance was "not unusual in a rural context". That inspector quoted the deleted 2024 sentence as if it were still in the Framework; nothing in TR3 says it. The 2026 rural wording cuts the other way. TR3(1)(e) says that "In rural areas, opportunities to improve walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport and enhance the connectivity of an area should be taken where they exist and can be supported by the development proposed", and at 6000903 Trewarmett the inspector held that TR3(1)(e) expects proposals "to take opportunities to improve rural connectivity" and that the scheme "has not been shown to do so". Expect the Tarleton argument at Claverdon; the answers are the route table below and a scheme that offers no footway, crossing or lighting.
What a sweep of every decision found
The sweep covered every decision in the dataset as it stood on 2 October 2026 — all 1,064 case files and all 1,508 appeal letters in the corpus. Only 203 mention a settlement-tier label at all, and in 94 of those the deliberately broad search matched wording about services (“local services” and the like) with no settlement tier referenced; those are excluded, leaving 109 that use a tier in the hierarchy sense, grouped A to F below. The great majority of decisions never mention a tier and decide location without reference to the hierarchy.
Every decision letter and case file in the dataset was searched for any settlement-tier label (“service village”, “Local Service Village”, “Key Service Centre”, “Category 1–4”, “tier 2 settlement” and the like). That found 203 decisions, each read at every matching passage and classified by how, if at all, the label influenced the result. Every quotation here and on the sub-pages is taken verbatim from that register and is checked against its source each time the page is built: 235 of 235 matched. Council-decision quotations are verified against the case file, because officer reports are not in the letter corpus.
No appeal in the dataset was allowed on the tier alone. In every allowed case the tier sat beside route evidence: a daily or better bus, lit footways or an urban setting. Where the route was poor, the label did not save the site.
How the tier was used
Decisions
A — the shorthand applied wrongly: tier treated as the answer, no route sentence
4
B — tier acknowledged, location decided against on the route
7
C — tier cited in support, beside route or transport evidence
16
D — tier counted against the site (low tier, unlisted, outside the hierarchy)
57
E — descriptive only
24
F — set aside: location finding imported from an adjoining recent permission
1
Excluded: search matched wording about services, no tier referenced
94
A — the shorthand applied wrongly: the tier treated as the answer, with no route sentence
The shorthand this piece is about. Two appeals were dismissed on other grounds with the tier accepted on location; the other approvals are the Council’s.
6007771Braceborough, South Kesteven (17 Aug 2026) — dismissed. Tier: “Braceborough is identified as a ‘smaller village’ within the LP Policy SP2 settlement hierarchy” ¶20 Route: none in the decision
6010196Great Witley, Malvern Hills (18 Sept 2026) — dismissed. Tier: “Great Witley is identified in the development plan settlement hierarchy as a village” ¶13 Route: none in the decision
stratford-26-01458-FULEarlswood, Stratford-on-Avon (3 Sept 2026) — approved. Tier: “within the BUAB of an identified local service village, I am satisfied that the proposals would be in a sustainable location” Route: none in the decision
stratford-26-01764-PIPKineton, Stratford-on-Avon (25 Aug 2026) — approved. Tier: “Kineton is a Main Rural Centre; site outside the BUAB but within walking distance of services” Route: none in the decision
B and C are the two outcomes when an inspector looks at both the tier and the route. In B the inspector acknowledged the tier, the route evidence went against the site, and the route decided it. In C the route evidence supported the location, so the tier was cited beside it. Each entry below quotes the tier sentence and the route sentence from the same decision.
B — the tier acknowledged, the location decided against on the route
6006722Welland, Malvern Hills (28 Sept 2026) — dismissed. Tier: “The village is a Category 1 settlement, with a range of services and public transport connections” ¶11 Route: “I crossed the 30mph carriageway and walked along the unlit footpath (on the opposite side of the street) to the village centre” ¶12
6006900Findon, South Downs National Park Authority (18 Sept 2026) — dismissed. Tier: “The nearest settlement to the appeal site is Findon which is a service village” ¶15 Route: “accessing Findon on foot or by bike from the appeal site would involve going along an unlit, unpaved narrow lane before crossing the Findon Bypass (A24)” ¶15
6009745Chilworth, Test Valley (17 Aug 2026) — dismissed. Tier: “which is designated as a Key Service Centre containing a range of facilities and services” ¶7 Route: “They have no street lighting, and in the main, no footpath.” ¶14
6009838Bolney, Mid Sussex (16 Sept 2026) — dismissed. Tier: “Bolney is identified as a medium sized village providing essential services” ¶9 Route: “Lodge Lane has no separate footways or streetlights and for the most part is subject to the national speed limit. This would deter future occupants of the development from walking along this route to access facilities in Bolney.” ¶19
6011231Banks, West Lancashire (15 Sept 2026) — allowed. Tier: “is identified in the LP as a ‘Key Sustainable Village.’” ¶9 Route: “the distance to the nearest services and facilities in Banks would mean that future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be largely reliant on the private car to meet their day-to-day needs” ¶14
APP-G2245-C-26-3377906West Kingsdown, Sevenoaks (8 Sept 2026) — allowed. Tier: “narrow lanes, service village, station 3+ miles” Route: “the site cannot be considered as sustainable in terms of public transport provision” DL ¶18
6009363nine dwellings), North East Lincolnshire (1 Oct 2026) — dismissed. Tier: “Waltham, to the north, is a Level 2 Local Service Centre” ¶15 Route: “Whilst proximity to Waltham is a benefit, its services nearly all lie beyond the 1000m isochrone and well beyond a reasonable walking distance.” ¶15
Three more sites a short walk from a Key Service Centre or a Tier 2 village failed the route test in the same way but sit in D, because the plan treated the site as outside the settlement: 6006289 Danbury, 6009691 Hurst Green, 6012304 Marton. With them, ten sites beside a favourably tiered settlement failed on the route; eight were dismissed and two were allowed on other grounds.
C — the tier cited in support, beside route evidence
6006497Chaldon, Tandridge (25 Sept 2026) — allowed. Tier: “several Category 2 settlements as defined in the TDCS including Woldingham (56)” ¶44 Route: “certain facilities are within a comfortable walk or cycle and although just over the 800m range at 850m, I am satisfied that future occupants would have a genuine choice of whether to walk or cycle to them” ¶35
6007184Thundersley, Castle Point (14 Sept 2026) — allowed. Tier: “Thundersley is identified to be one of the most sustainable settlements in the” ¶95 Route: “There are a range of day-to-day facilities within walking and cycling distance of the appeal site, accessible via the existing pedestrian / cycle network. Bus stops from which services to and from Southend-on-Sea, Hadleigh and Rayleigh, as well as facilities in Thundersley, are within walking distance of the site.” ¶38
6007272Battle, Rother (17 Sept 2026) — dismissed. Tier: “Battle is one of the larger settlements in the district’s hierarchy” ¶36 Route: “services and facilities, including schools, are located close by and could likely be reached by sustainable transport modes” ¶47
6008253Aston Clinton, Buckinghamshire (24 Sept 2026) — allowed. Tier: “Aston Clinton is defined within Policy S3 as a larger village which has reasonable access to facilities and services” ¶32 Route: “I am content that the offsite highway works are necessary to enhance connectivity to local services and facilities” ¶42
6010848Pitstone, Buckinghamshire (18 Sept 2026) — dismissed. Tier: “Pitstone is identified as a larger village within the settlement hierarchy and is” ¶17 Route: “The surrounding area also benefits from extensive footway provision, street lighting and relatively gentle topography, making active travel a realistic option for future occupiers.” ¶20
6010973Broadwas, Malvern Hills (11 Sept 2026) — allowed. Tier: “Broadwas is defined, in Annex B, as a Category 2 settlement as it has at” ¶9 Route: “the public house, school, recreation field, and bus stops are all within walking distance of the appeal site and there is a doctor's surgery within cycling distance, even if this would only be suitable for competent and confident cyclists” ¶17
6011093Etwall, South Derbyshire (23 Sept 2026) — allowed. Tier: “in this sustainable settlement location” ¶26 Route: “The main parties agree that the appeal site lies within the settlement boundary of Etwall, that the site occupies a sustainable location” ¶6
6011103Biddulph Moor, Staffordshire Moorlands (7 Sept 2026) — allowed. Tier: “Biddulph Moor is identified as a larger village, under SMLP Policy SS8” ¶13 Route: “Routes to these from the appeal site would be along Rudyard Road and Hot Lane, which have footpaths and street lighting, except for a stretch along Hot Lane, which I saw had no footpath.” ¶19
APP-E3335-W-25-3375062Beckington, Somerset (18 Sept 2026) — allowed. Tier: “A primary village with walkable shop, school, GP and frequent buses” Route: “Beckington has facilities which enables residents to avoid many day to day excursions by car” DL ¶26
cheshireeast-25-2053-FULHandforth, Cheshire East (19 Aug 2026) — approved. Tier: “The site is clearly within an area that has walkable access to key services” Route: “Sagars Road from the west side of the site entrance has pavements and street lighting. The site is clearly within an area that has walkable access to key services” report ¶10.56
maldon-26-00066-OUTMTollesbury, Maldon (2 Sept 2026) — approved. Tier: “edge of 'larger village', development on two sides, no gap” Route: “acknowledge that there would be an element of reliance on private motor vehicle trips which cannot be fully addressed” report ¶5.2.21
malvern-M-26-01162-PIPCallow End, Malvern Hills (14 Sept 2026) — refused. Tier: “Callow End is a Category 1 village with services and public transport within walking and cycling distance” Route: “The location in terms of its sustainability is essentially well place for most key services and facilities provided in Callow End” report, Location
stratford-25-00346-OUTSoutham, Stratford-on-Avon (26 Aug 2026) — approved. Tier: “adjoins Main Rural Centre Southam; well related and of a scale Southam can accommodate” Route: “A very small part of the site is within the Built Up Area Boundary for Southam – namely the proposed cycle / footway that feeds into Stowe Drive only” update sheet p.10
westnorthants-WNS-2022-0673-MAFKislingbury, West Northamptonshire (8 Sept 2026) — refused. Tier: “adjoins Kislingbury (Secondary Service Village A) with a school, shop, pubs and a regular bus to Northampton” Route: “notwithstanding its location beyond the settlement boundary, the site occupies a sustainable location for residential development” report ¶8.48
6010951Clavering, Uttlesford (1 Oct 2026) — dismissed. Tier: “Clavering is classified as a larger village” ¶21 Route: “A footway opposite the site provides pedestrian access to a range of services and facilities located both to the north and south.” ¶25
stratford-26-01894-PIPPillerton Priors, Stratford-on-Avon (25 Sept 2026) — refused. Tier: “The level of sustainability is of course not high, as is indicated by its classification as a Category 4 Local Service Village” Route: “it is noted that Pillerton Priors is well served by a number of pavements, ensuring occupants can easily walk around the village” report p.9
And the tier is used against sites far more often than for them
57 decisions cite a low tier, an unlisted village or a site outside the hierarchy against the proposal — more than twice the 21 that cite a tier in its favour. Many route-decided dismissals carry no tier label at all even where the village is a named service centre; the inspectors went straight to TR3: 6006637 Hatton Station, 6007428 Halsall, 6008688 East Grinstead, 6009966 South Nutfield.
Before the 2026 Framework, three of four Council decisions on Claverdon reasoned “Category 3 Local Service Village with a shop, school, pub and surgery, so sustainable”; the fourth, 22/01896/FUL, called the same hinterland “an unsustainable location”.
All 203 decisions, grouped by how the tier was used
A · The shorthand applied wrongly: tier treated as the answer, no route sentence (4)
6007771Church View, Wilsthorpe Road, Braceborough, South Kesteven (17 Aug 2026) — dismissed
6010196Land at OS 7540 6621 Stourport Road, Great Witley (4 dwellings), Malvern Hills (18 Sept 2026) — dismissed
Claverdon is a Category 3 Local Service Village in Stratford's Core Strategy and is washed over by the Green Belt, so it is not a settlement as the NPPF defines it (Annex B). The site is outside the village's built-up area boundary, so the tier gives it no plan support either. Five houses north of Station Road stand or fall on the route east to the services and the station:
On the route
What is there
Footway
None on the site side of Station Road
Lighting
None on the eastward route
Traffic
40 mph limit from the village edge
Crossing
No formal crossing. The scheme offers a dropped kerb with tactile paving at the site frontage
Bus
Flexibus 510: one return journey, Wednesdays, on request
Train
Unstaffed request stop, no Sunday service
On the reasoning of Findon and Hatton Station, that is a car-reliant location, whatever Claverdon's place in the hierarchy. None of the allowed cases above had transport this thin: a Wednesday-only request bus and a request-stop station are nothing like the lit footways, secured off-site works and bus contribution at Aston Clinton.
Expect the dropped kerb to be offered as the "planned improvement" that makes the location sustainable under TR3(1)(a), or as the connectivity enhancement TR3(1)(e) asks for. It is neither. It is access for the five dwellings: it serves no existing movement, so it enhances nothing for the area, and it leaves every deficiency on the route beyond it untouched. What inspectors have accepted under (e) is of a different order, such as the 20 mph order, traffic calming, bus shelters and crossing points secured at Chaldon. The kerb also tells against the scheme. It admits that every walk from the site begins by crossing an unlit 40 mph road, and the highway authority's audit review (8 September 2026, item 5.1) recommends "sufficient lighting be provided in this area to remove the dark spot around the pedestrian crossing point", while the ecology consultee asks that boundary hedgerows are "not illuminated (as far as possible)". The one improvement on offer needs a further improvement to be safe, and no document reconciles the two.