What is a "settlement" under the 2026 NPPF?

The Annex B definition, where the Framework uses the word, what a place loses when it is not one, whether a service-village tier counts, and the 41 decisions so far that have applied it.

The short answer #

A settlement is what Annex B of the Framework says it is, and nothing else. It is a city, town, village or other predominantly built-up area, plus land allocated or permitted to join it, plus anything the development plan defines as a settlement. Two kinds of place are taken out: hamlets and scattered groups of houses (unless the plan names them), and villages that lie within and are defined as part of the Green Belt.

The word matters because the Framework's presumption in favour of development is split on it. Inside a settlement, policy S4 says approve unless the harm substantially outweighs the benefit. Outside, policy S5 allows only ten listed kinds of development. A place that is not a settlement never reaches S4, and cannot be the "existing settlement" that several S5 routes require a site to relate to.

A council's settlement hierarchy does not come into it. "Service village", "Local Service Village", "Key Service Centre" and the rest are local plan labels; the Framework does not use them. A tier bears on the question only through the plan's own definition of the place as a settlement, and the Green Belt exclusion overrides even that. Our judgement on tiers is below.

The definition #

The glossary at Annex B of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) of 17 August 2026 reads:

Settlement: Includes cities, towns, villages and other predominantly built-up areas, including land which is allocated or has permission for development which will form part of the built-up area once the development is complete. This includes areas defined as a settlement in the development plan (whether using defined settlement boundaries or equivalent terms, or criteria for identifying settlement extents where boundaries have yet to be defined). Settlements do not include hamlets and scattered groups of houses located outside predominantly built-up areas, unless specifically defined as a settlement in the development plan. For the purpose of this Framework they also exclude villages which lie within and are defined as part of the Green Belt in the development plan.

NPPF, August 2026, Annex B, "Settlement"

Read it as four limbs.

  1. What is in by nature. Cities, towns, villages and "other predominantly built-up areas". The test is the built form on the ground. Land allocated or permitted for development that will become part of the built-up area is in from the day of the allocation or permission, not the day it is built.
  2. What is in by the plan. Anything the development plan defines as a settlement, whether by a drawn boundary, an "equivalent term" (a Built-Up Area Boundary, a Limit to Development, a Principal Urban Area) or criteria where no line has been drawn. The word "includes" means this limb adds to the first; it does not replace it. An inspector at Polegate put it plainly:

    it is clear from the use of ‘includes’ that being within an area defined as settlement in the development plan is not a pre-requisite for being a settlement in the terms of the Framework

    Polegate, appeal 6008314, ¶102
  3. What is out by nature. Hamlets, and scattered groups of houses outside predominantly built-up areas. The plan can bring one back in by defining it as a settlement, but only "specifically".
  4. What is out by designation. Villages that "lie within and are defined as part of the Green Belt in the development plan", the villages planners call "washed over". This exclusion is absolute for the Framework's purposes: the plan cannot bring a washed-over village back in except by insetting it, which is a Green Belt boundary change under policy GB4. The sentence is scoped "for the purpose of this Framework": such a village is still a village, still a settlement in the plan's hierarchy, and still a village for GB7(1)(c), which allows "Limited infilling in villages lying within the Green Belt".

Three words in the definition are not themselves defined: "village", "hamlet" and "predominantly built-up". The decisions below show inspectors deciding them on the ground: the number of houses, whether there are facilities, whether the buildings read as one place with "definable boundaries" or as "a straggle of dwellings", and whether the site is inside the built form or beyond its edge. Who defines a city, a town, a village or a hamlet, and how the village-or-hamlet line is drawn, is the subject of the companion page What is a village under the 2026 NPPF.

Where the definition came from #

The December 2024 Framework had no definition of "settlement" at all. Its spatial policies turned on other words: isolated homes in the countryside, the "vitality of rural communities", and a Green Belt paragraph that said a village should be included in the Green Belt only where its open character matters to openness:

If it is necessary to restrict development in a village primarily because of the important contribution which the open character of the village makes to the openness of the Green Belt, the village should be included in the Green Belt.

NPPF, December 2024, ¶150

The December 2025 consultation draft introduced the S3 to S5 split and a definition of settlement that stopped at the hamlet sentence. It had no Green Belt sentence:

Settlements do not include hamlets and scattered groups of houses located outside predominantly built-up areas, unless specifically defined as a settlement in the development plan.

Draft NPPF for consultation, December 2025, Annex B, "Settlement"

Under the draft, a washed-over village could have been an S4 settlement. The government's response to the consultation, published with the final Framework, records the change on the definition (Question 35):

Changes have been made to clarify the relationship with development plans where settlements have yet to be defined, and to address how the definition applies to villages within the Green Belt.

MHCLG, NPPF consultation: government response, August 2026, response to Question 35, p.30

and the matching change to the plan-making policy (Question 132):

changes to policy GB4 to recognise that villages lying in the Green Belt should not be identified as settlements for the purpose of the spatial strategy in the development plan

MHCLG, NPPF consultation: government response, August 2026, response to Question 132, p.90

The response also records that respondents wanted "greater certainty on specific issues, including the treatment of smaller settlements, the role of ‘gap’ policies and the relationship with the Green Belt", and that the government "will consider whether additional planning guidance would be helpful to assist the identification of settlements in plans". No such guidance had been published when this page was built.

Commentators noticed the exclusion at once. On the podcast recorded the day after publication, Charles Banner KC said of the definition that "villages in the green belt are excluded from the definition" and, on GB4, that "it's only villages which are not classified as settlements for the purposes of the spatial strategy which should be included in the green belt, i.e. washed over with it". Planning Geek's explainer notes "a special qualification for villages which lie within and are defined as part of the Green Belt". Livedin's glossary puts the consequence in one line: "A village inside the Green Belt does not count, however built-up it looks." Cornerstone Barristers raised the open question the other way round: "The definition of settlement includes areas defined as a settlement in a development plan, but the definition is not exhaustive." Links are in the sources.

Where the Framework hangs a rule on the word #

"Settlement" appears 46 times in the August 2026 Framework. The table lists every policy that uses it, what the word does there, and what follows for a place that is not a settlement. Policies are cited by the Framework's own codes; each links to the text in our Markdown edition of the Framework.

PolicyWhat the word doesIf the place is not a settlement
S2(1)(a)
Plan-making		Plans must identify settlements using the Annex B definition, and their boundaries.
Settlements within the development plan area (applying the definition in the glossary at Annex B), whether existing or proposed, and their boundaries		A place the plan leaves out, or a village it keeps in the Green Belt, is not identified as a settlement.
S2(1)(c)
Plan-making		Gap policies protect the separation of settlements.
Designations and associated policies to safeguard gaps between settlements should be used only where they are necessary to maintain the separate identities of the settlements		A gap policy cannot be justified by the separate identity of a hamlet.
S3(1)(a) and (b)
Decision route		The fork: S4 inside a settlement, S5 outside.
Policy S4 in this Framework should be applied when considering development proposals within settlements		The proposal goes to S5. In the Green Belt, S5(5) sends it on to GB6 to GB8.
S3(2)
Decision route		A site straddling the boundary is split.
Where a development proposal falls partly within and partly outside a settlement, policies S4 and S5 should be applied to the relevant parts		Nothing to split: the whole site is outside.
S4(1)
Decision		The general presumption in favour of development.
Development proposals within settlements should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects		Not available. This is the rule that excluded places lose.
S5(1)
Decision		A closed list of ten categories.
Only certain forms of development should be approved outside settlements		This is the policy that applies instead, outside the Green Belt.
S5(1)(b)
Decision		Rural business must show it needs to be outside.
Development for rural businesses and services, including tourism, where a location outside settlements is shown to be necessary		The need test applies.
S5(1)(e)
Decision		The category for hamlets and clusters that are not settlements.
Limited infilling within groups of houses		This is the usual route for a hamlet: a gap within the group, not an extension of it.
S5(1)(h)(ii)
Decision		Housing near a well-connected station.
Be physically well-related to the station or the settlement within which the station is located		The relationship is measured to the station or to its settlement.
S5(1)(i)
Decision		Allocated land outside settlements.
The development of land allocated for that purpose in the development plan (where this lies outside settlements)		An allocation still counts; and under Annex B, allocated land that will join the built-up area is itself part of the settlement.
S5(1)(j)(i)
Decision		The unmet-need route, including where there is no five-year housing land supply.
Be physically well-related to an existing settlement		Fails if the nearest built form is a hamlet or scattered group: it is not "an existing settlement" to be well-related to.
S5(3)
Decision		Defines isolated homes by reference to settlements and groups of houses.
Development proposals comprising isolated homes, which are those lying outside settlements or groups of houses, should not be approved other than in accordance with policy HO11		A home outside both is isolated and goes to HO11.
HO4(1)
Plan-making		Strategic sites.
such as new settlements, new urban quarters or significant extensions to existing settlements		Descriptive only.
HO10(1) and (2)
Decision		Exception sites (rural exception and community-led) are outside settlements by definition, and HO10(2)(a) says they should "Adjoin or be physically well-related to a settlement"; HO10(2)(b) caps them at 5% of "the existing settlement".
Development proposals for housing on land not already allocated for this purpose, and which are located outside settlements, should be supported where they are		An exception site next to a hamlet, or next to a washed-over village, has no settlement to adjoin or to measure 5% against.
HO12(1)(a)
Decision		Traveller sites: the settlement relationship is relaxed.
may also mean that locations not well-related to existing settlements may be appropriate		Relaxed anyway.
E4(2)
Decision		Rural business outside settlements.
Development proposals to meet business needs in rural areas may need to be located outside settlements, and in locations that are not well served by public transport		Applies; the policy then asks for the location to be justified.
L2(1)(d)
Decision		Airspace and plot development, and the residential-curtilage test that S4(2)(a)(ii) picks up.
Creating additional homes or floorspace within settlements by using the airspace above existing residential and commercial premises, or through sensitive redevelopment or additional development within existing plots		Not engaged outside a settlement (one Stratford report applied it in a washed-over village: see the register).
L3(2)(a) and (b)
Decision		The density duty applies within settlements. L3(2)(b) covers land "Outside settlements" and land that "will form part of a settlement (as defined in the glossary at Annex B)".
Within settlements, development proposals for residential and mixed-use development should contribute to an increase in the density of the area in which they are situated		The "best use of a site's development potential" test in L3(2)(b) applies instead.
GB1(1)
Plan-making		New Green Belts.
for example when planning for new settlements or major urban extensions		Descriptive only.
GB4(1)(b)
Plan-making		Villages kept in the Green Belt are not to be identified as settlements in the spatial strategy. This is the plan-making half of the Annex B exclusion.
Such villages should not be identified as ‘settlements’ for the purpose of the spatial strategy in the development plan		The village is washed over and stays outside the settlement route until a plan insets it.
GB4(1)(g)
Plan-making		Safeguarded land is outside settlements.
safeguarded land is not allocated for development at the present time (and does not form part of settlements)		Outside.
GB7(1)(c)
Decision		The Green Belt category written for washed-over villages. It uses "villages", not "settlements".
Limited infilling in villages lying within the Green Belt		This is the route a washed-over village gets instead of S4: limited infilling that is not inappropriate development, then the S5(5) balance.
GB7(1)(h)(ii)
Decision		Green Belt housing near a well-connected station.
Be physically well-related to the station or the settlement within which the station is located		As S5(1)(h)(ii).
DP3(2)(d)
Decision		Design: movement connections.
provide good connections to the wider settlement (or those nearby)		Connections to nearby settlements are still expected.
TR5(1)
Decision		Roadside facilities.
Development proposals for roadside facilities located outside settlements should		Applies.
Annex B, "Out of centre"
Glossary		Town-centre tests.
A location which is not in or on the edge of a centre but not necessarily outside the settlement		Descriptive only.
Footnote 28
Decision		Sites beyond an undeveloped allocation.
Where a development proposal is located outside a settlement, and separated from the existing built-up area by virtue of being beyond the outside edge of an allocated site that has yet to be fully developed		Consider whether the location is suitable if the allocation does not proceed.

Two absences matter as much as the uses. The Framework never says "settlement hierarchy", "service centre", "service village" or "rural centre"; those are local plan terms. And the Green Belt chapter's own category for small-scale housing in villages, GB7(1)(c), says "villages", not "settlements", so it keeps working in a washed-over village after Annex B has taken the village out of S4.

What follows when a place is not a settlement #

A hamlet or scattered group, outside the Green Belt #

The proposal goes to S5. The categories that can still carry housing are limited infilling within groups of houses (S5(1)(e)), the re-use or replacement of an existing building (S5(1)(c)), previously developed land (S5(1)(d)), and an exception site (S5(1)(f)). The unmet-need route, S5(1)(j), is normally closed: it requires the site to be "physically well-related to an existing settlement", and the hamlet itself is not one. A home outside both a settlement and a group of houses is "isolated" under S5(3) and goes to HO11. The decisions show S5(1)(j) failing on exactly this point at West Willoughby, Chavel, Marton, Washington, Great Easton and Pyworthy, in several cases with the council unable to show a five-year housing land supply.

Though the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, this requires development would be physically well related to an existing settlement. As set out above, West Willoughby is not a settlement in the context of the Framework’s definition.

West Willoughby, appeal 6010911, ¶30

A village washed over by the Green Belt #

Here the word changes less than it seems to, because S5(5) sends every Green Belt proposal to GB6 to GB8 whether or not the site is in a settlement. What Annex B removes is the S4 presumption. The route is: is the proposal in a GB7 category (for a washed-over village, usually GB7(1)(b) extensions and replacements, GB7(1)(c) limited infilling in villages, GB7(1)(e) previously developed land, or GB7(1)(g) grey belt with its sustainable-location limb)? If yes, it is not inappropriate development and the S5(5) balance applies: approve unless the benefits are substantially outweighed. If no, it is inappropriate development and needs very special circumstances under GB6(2). The inspector at Fobbing set this out in one paragraph:

The Glossary to the Framework states that villages which lie within and are defined as part of the Green Belt, as is the case with Fobbing, are not settlements for the purposes of the Framework, and consequently Policy S4 is not engaged. As the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, Policy S5 does not apply to it either. The proposal should therefore be determined in accordance with Policy GB7, with which I have found conflict.

Fobbing, appeal 6009919, ¶49

A Stratford-on-Avon officer reached the same place for a house extension in Earlswood, a Category 3 Local Service Village washed over by the West Midlands Green Belt:

the application site is not considered to be within a settlement because it lies within the Green Belt

Earlswood, 26/01614/FUL, officer report, p.2

Three things still matter in a washed-over village. Its facilities count under TR3 and GB7(1)(g)(iii), as facts about whether occupiers can reach services without a car, not as a settlement category (see how a sustainable location is assessed). Its built form decides whether a plot is "infilling" under GB7(1)(c) and whether a garden is "within a built-up area" for the previously-developed-land definition, as at Heronsgate. And its position in the plan's hierarchy still decides whether the proposal accords with the plan's spatial strategy, weighed under Annex A, which is a separate question from the Framework route.

The Navigator's note on washed-over villages gives the same route step by step.

Does a service tier make a village a settlement? #

Judgement: no, not of itself. A tier in a council's settlement hierarchy ("Category 3 Local Service Village", "Key Service Centre", "Limited Infill Village") is a plan-making label for distributing housing. It is not one of the four limbs of the Annex B definition. It bears on the question only indirectly, through the second limb: a plan that gives a place a tier usually also defines it as a settlement, with a boundary or an equivalent term, and that definition is what Annex B picks up. The tier is evidence that the plan treats the place as a settlement; it is not the test.

Four situations cover the cases we have seen.

The reverse error is also worth naming. Annex B does not require a tier, a boundary or any facilities for a village to be a settlement: "The term ‘settlement’ is defined as including villages" was enough at Little Dunham (Little Dunham, appeal 6009588, ¶23), and at Hamerton the inspector treated a village of about 24 homes as a settlement although the plan's own built-up-area threshold was 30 (Hamerton, appeal 6008987, ¶6). The line between a small village and a hamlet is drawn on the ground. Towan Cross, several clusters with gaps between them and village signs at each end, was held "akin to a small village with definable boundaries and is not a straggle of dwellings" (Truro, appeal 6009030, ¶10); West Willoughby, fifteen houses and no facilities, was not a predominantly built-up area (West Willoughby, appeal 6010911, ¶29).

Two consultation responses show the gap that leaves. South Oxfordshire District Council objected that the national policy "provides no consideration of the size or sustainability of settlements", which is the point: size and services are for TR3 and for the plan's hierarchy, not for the Annex B gate. The Local Government Association's briefing on the Green Belt policy says "Villages (as opposed to hamlets) should not be considered Green Belt if they are identified as a settlement. These terms remain undefined."

The decisions #

Every decision in our database (1,064 decisions, 951 under the August 2026 Framework) and every decision letter in our corpus (1,508 letters) was searched for the definition: references to Annex B or the glossary near "settlement", "not a settlement", "washed over", "defined as part of the Green Belt", and the hamlet and scattered-group wording. Each match was read and classified. 41 decisions engage the definition; they are listed by what was decided, with the sentence that decided it. Quotations are checked against the decision letter, or against the officer report for council decisions, when this page is built. The build fails if a letter in the corpus matches the search and has no row here. Dataset as at 2 October 2026.

6
A village washed over by the Green Belt is not a settlement
18
A hamlet, cluster, ribbon or scattered group is not a settlement
5
The plan boundary taken as the edge of the settlement
9
Held to be a settlement although the point was argued
3
A washed-over village treated as a settlement, or the question not asked

A village washed over by the Green Belt is not a settlement #

Fobbing, Thurrock #

dismissed

Appeal 6009919, 29 September 2026, ¶49

The Glossary to the Framework states that villages which lie within and are defined as part of the Green Belt, as is the case with Fobbing, are not settlements for the purposes of the Framework, and consequently Policy S4 is not engaged. As the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, Policy S5 does not apply to it either. The proposal should therefore be determined in accordance with Policy GB7

The clearest statement in the corpus. A covered pool and annexe behind two houses in a washed-over village and conservation area; inappropriate development, no very special circumstances.

Toms Lane, Kings Langley, Three Rivers #

dismissed

Appeal 6011803, 9 September 2026, ¶18

The Council has expressed that it considers the site to be within the built-up area and therefore, that policy S4 of the Framework applies. I do accept that the site has strong connections to more built-up areas and its character is not dissimilar to a suburban environment. However, the site is designated in the Local Plan as being washed over by the Green Belt.

The council argued S4 for a suburban-looking road. The inspector held the washed-over designation and the semi-rural character took it out of a built-up area, and decided it under GB7 and the S5(5) balance.

Burnham, Buckinghamshire #

allowed

Appeal 6005162, 2 October 2026, ¶7

In spatial policy terms the site lies just to the north of the defined settlement boundary of the village of Burnham. It therefore lies within a land use designation as open countryside, washed over by the Metropolitan GB.

Outside the boundary and in the Green Belt: GB6 and GB7 applied (¶44), not S4 or S5(1). Allowed as not inappropriate development.

Stoneleigh, Warwick #

dismissed

Appeal 6011601, 28 September 2026, ¶5

Quince Cottage is sited within Stoneleigh, defined in the Warwick District Local Plan 2011-2029 (LP) as a Limited Infill Village, which is washed over by the West Midlands Green Belt. Policy DS18 of the LP states that national planning policy will be applied to proposals within the Green Belt.

A village with a local plan tier ("Limited Infill Village"), decided under GB7 because it is washed over. The letter is in the corpus; the decision has not yet been distilled into the database.

Earlswood, Stratford-on-Avon #

refused

Council 26/01614/FUL, 24 September 2026, p.2

the application site is not considered to be within a settlement because it lies within the Green Belt

A council officer applying the exclusion in terms, in a Category 3 Local Service Village. S5 was set aside because it "does not apply to development proposals within the Green Belt", and the extension was assessed under GB6 and GB7.

Heronsgate, Three Rivers #

allowed

Appeal 6010198, 24 September 2026, ¶12

I must also have regard to the character of the area which, although clearly exhibiting signs of development in the form of various detached and semi-detached homes, is not built-up in character.

A washed-over, very low-density village held not to be a built-up area, so a garden plot counted as previously developed land under GB7(1)(e). A different Annex B test (the garden exclusion from previously developed land), but the same reasoning about what "built-up" means in a washed-over village.

A hamlet, cluster, ribbon or scattered group is not a settlement #

West Willoughby, South Kesteven #

dismissed

Appeal 6010911, 25 September 2026, ¶29

West Willoughby comprises 15 houses and no other facilities, accordingly I do not find it can be considered a predominantly built-up area, or that the site is within a settlement and as a result policy S4 of the Framework does not apply.

Then at ¶30: with no five-year supply, S5(1)(j) still failed because "West Willoughby is not a settlement in the context of the Framework’s definition"; S5(1)(e) infilling within a group of houses applied instead. Dismissed on biodiversity net gain alone.

Higher Bal, St Agnes, Cornwall #

dismissed

Appeal 6010498, 28 September 2026, ¶22

I have found that the appeal site forms part of a settlement within the context of the LP. However, the glossary of the Framework makes it clear that the definition of a settlement does not include hamlets. The appellant has acknowledged within their statement of case that Higher Bal is a hamlet, and I agree with that assessment. As such, Policy S5 of the Framework is of relevance, rather than Policy S4.

The local plan treated the place as a settlement; the Framework did not. The national definition won the route.

Chavel, Shropshire #

dismissed

Appeal 6011150, 17 September 2026, ¶10

The definition of a settlement in the Framework includes cities, towns, villages and other predominantly built-up areas, but not hamlets and scattered groups of houses located outside predominantly built-up areas.

A roadside group with a petrol-station shop, restaurant and takeaway. Not a predominantly built-up area, so S5(1)(j) failed despite no five-year supply; seven to eight homes dismissed under S5(4).

Marton, near Cuddington and Sandiway, Cheshire West #

dismissed

Appeal 6012304, 28 September 2026, ¶29

The adjacent ribbon development is not defined as a settlement within the development plan and is no more than a scattered group of houses outside a predominantly built-up area. Consequently, this does not meet the Framework’s definition of a settlement.

With 1.6 years of supply, S5(1)(j)(i) still failed: the nearest defined settlement was about a kilometre away.

Washington, Horsham #

allowed

Appeal 6009593, 10 September 2026, ¶13

As defined in the Framework, relevant settlements exclude hamlets and scattered groups of houses located outside predominantly built-up areas, where they are not specifically defined as a settlement in the development plan. The nearest settlements which would clearly fall within the Framework’s definition are all some distance away, and the site is not physically well-related to them.

S5(1)(j) closed; the appeal was allowed on another S5 category.

Trewarmett, Tintagel, Cornwall #

dismissed

Appeal 6000903, 25 August 2026, ¶5

Trewarmett is a hamlet and is not defined as a settlement in the development plan or the Framework. The site therefore lies outside of a defined settlement.

The earliest application of the definition in the corpus, eight days after the Framework took effect.

Poundstock, Cornwall #

dismissed

Appeal 6010020, 24 September 2026, ¶20

The site lies outside of a settlement, defined by the Framework as excluding scattered groups of houses located outside predominantly built-up areas. Consequently, Framework policy S5 is engaged.

S5(1)(e) then failed: a field gap in a loose group is not infilling.

Holsworthy Beacon, Torridge #

allowed

Appeal 6009632, 16 September 2026, ¶13

Policy S4 applies within settlements, and policy S5 applies outside of them. Settlements do not include hamlets and scattered groups of houses located outside predominantly built-up areas. The pattern of development around the appeal site is somewhat sporadic and secluded, with fields opposite and behind the site.

The place also lacked the facilities to be a "Rural Settlement" under the local plan (¶5). Allowed under an S5 category.

Charley, North West Leicestershire #

allowed

Appeal 6009255, 2 October 2026, ¶8

also confirms that the term ‘settlement’ does not include hamlets outside predominantly built-up areas

A hamlet at the bottom of the local settlement hierarchy (¶6). The garage conversion was allowed under S5(1)(c), re-use of an existing building.

Great Easton, Uttlesford #

dismissed

Appeal 6008739, 3 September 2026, ¶28

the appeal site is not physically well-related to an existing settlement as it is located at the end of a hamlet, and it is separated from the more built-up areas by open countryside

With 4.77 years of supply S5(1)(j) was engaged but failed; the end-of-row plot was not infilling within the group either (¶9).

Pyworthy, Torridge #

dismissed

Appeal 6010166, 1 September 2026, ¶15

Even though the appeal site is close to a few other houses, I have already found it is not well-related to an existing settlement. It therefore does not fall within category 1(j) or any other category in Framework Policy S5.

A few houses nearby are not a settlement for S5(1)(j).

Morchard Bishop, Mid Devon #

dismissed

Appeal 6012985, 23 September 2026, ¶9

While near a scattered group of dwellings that extends in a linear form away from the settlement, there are notable verdant gaps along this route

About 400 m from the village, but physically separated from it; not well-related (¶12).

Hempnall Green, South Norfolk #

allowed

Appeal 6004780, 25 September 2026, ¶37

I have not been provided with a definition of a settlement in relation to the development plan. However, I note Annex B of the Framework specifically sets out settlements do not include hamlets and scattered groups of houses located outside predominantly built-up areas.

The Framework definition filled the gap where the plan had none. Self-build permission in principle allowed on other grounds.

Marazanvose, St Allen, Cornwall #

dismissed

Appeal 6006832, 1 September 2026, ¶26

Annex B of the Framework states that settlements do not include hamlets and scattered groups of houses located outside predominantly built-up areas, unless specifically defined as a settlement in the development plan.

Read alongside a Cornwall Local Plan passage that excludes "a low density straggle of dwellings" from infilling.

Higher Trevellas, St Agnes, Cornwall #

dismissed

Appeal 6008432, 2 October 2026, ¶13

Consequently, I find that this grouping of buildings is not a settlement for development plan purposes.

After quoting the Framework exclusion of hamlets and scattered groups (¶11).

Beeston, Cheshire West #

dismissed

Appeal 6011423, 2 October 2026, ¶20

Neither party has presented any evidence as to whether or not the appeal site is located within a settlement. Therefore, based on my on-site observations of the rural nature of the appeal site and its separation from any built-up areas, I find that the appeal site is not located within a settlement as defined within Annex B of the Framework. Consequently, I conclude that Policy S5 of the Framework is applicable.

The inspector decided the question unprompted, from the site visit. The letter is in the corpus; the decision has not yet been distilled into the database.

Pinvin, Wychavon #

approved

Council W/26/00329/FUL, 16 September 2026, Principle

as the site is mostly surrounded by open countryside and is clearly visually divorced from the main built development of Pinvin, it is not considered within a settlement as defined within the NPPF

A council applying the definition to a barn 700 m outside the village, among scattered dwellings.

Drakes Broughton, Wychavon #

refused

Council W/26/01322/OUT, 2 September 2026, Principle

physically the site is clearly separate from the village with it being located beyond the village's established northern building line … and so is not considered to be located within a predominantly built up area

A field next to a village boundary but beyond its building line is outside the Annex B settlement. Fifty homes refused under S5(4).

The plan boundary taken as the edge of the settlement #

Buntingford, East Hertfordshire #

allowed

Appeal 6008238, 24 September 2026, ¶14

I have applied the definition of a settlement in Annex B of the Framework and taken the settlement of Buntingford to be that which is shown by way of a settlement boundary in the East Hertfordshire District Plan 2018 (LP).

Six hundred homes outside the boundary, allowed under S5.

Bournheath, Bromsgrove #

allowed

Appeal 6011301, 10 September 2026, ¶23

The glossary of the Framework offers a definition of settlement, which includes areas defined as such in the development plan and those using defined settlement boundaries. As such, I see no reason to disagree that the site is outside of the settlement by virtue of being outside of the boundary.

The plan boundary taken as the edge.

Claydon, Mid Suffolk #

dismissed

Appeal 6010228, 8 September 2026, ¶8

Its definition of settlement includes predominantly built-up areas and areas defined as such in the development plan. The site adjoins houses but does not contain any buildings or structures. Given the boundaries on the Policies Map and the situation on the ground, the site is not within a settlement for the purposes of applying policies in the Framework.

Both limbs checked: the map and the ground.

Glenfall Way, Cheltenham #

dismissed

Appeal 6008569, 4 September 2026, ¶9

As the site is outside the PUA, the proposed development would not be within a settlement as defined under the terms of the Framework. Accordingly, policy S5 of the Framework is applicable

The Principal Urban Area boundary taken as the settlement edge.

Gaydon, Stratford-on-Avon #

approved

Council 25/01765/FUL, 17 September 2026, p.20

I have taken a precautionary approach and adopted the position that the site is located outside of a settlement in respect of the main built form of Gaydon Lighthorne Heath as currently exists.

The officer saw that Annex B counts allocated land that will join the built-up area, and could have treated the site as within the settlement, but applied S5 to be safe.

Held to be a settlement although the point was argued #

Broadwas, Malvern Hills #

allowed

Appeal 6010973, 11 September 2026, ¶12

Even if I accept that the appeal site is not within a large built-up area, the Framework advises that the definition of settlements include areas defined as such in the development plan. Broadwas is defined as a settlement in the SWDPR 2026 and is, therefore, a settlement when considered against the definition in Annex B of the Framework.

A Category 2 settlement in the plan: the plan definition carried it. The site was still outside the boundary, in the countryside (¶9).

Polegate, Wealden #

allowed

Appeal 6008314, 15 September 2026, ¶102

it is clear from the use of ‘includes’ that being within an area defined as settlement in the development plan is not a pre-requisite for being a settlement in the terms of the Framework

The definition is not exhaustive: a place can be a settlement on the ground without a plan boundary.

Towan Cross, Cornwall #

dismissed

Appeal 6009030, 30 September 2026, ¶10

it seems to me that the clusters of development form a settlement that is akin to a small village with definable boundaries and is not a straggle of dwellings

Several clusters with landscape gaps and village road signs, held to be a settlement under both the plan and the Framework. Dismissed on other grounds.

Towan Cross, Cornwall #

allowed

Appeal 6008437, 21 September 2026, ¶13

The cluster of buildings in the immediate area of the appeal site, including the public house, could be considered to be a hamlet when considered in isolation. However, that cluster clearly forms part of a larger settlement with other clusters of buildings

The same place, same inspector, nine days earlier: "much more akin to a small village than a hamlet".

Little Dunham, Breckland #

dismissed

Appeal 6009588, 15 September 2026, ¶23

The term ‘settlement’ is defined as including villages. As such, I take Little Dunham to be a settlement for the purposes of the Framework. That said, and as I have described above, the appeal site is beyond the edge of the existing built form of the village. For that reason, I find the site to be outside of a settlement.

A village is a settlement because the definition says so; the site was outside its built form.

East Lambrook, Somerset #

dismissed

Appeal 6010393, 21 September 2026, ¶19

The site is well connected to existing built form, and given that it is part of an existing rear garden, it is likely that the site can be considered to form part of the settlement.

A rear garden at the edge of a small village taken as inside the settlement; S4 applied and the appeal still failed.

Hamerton, Huntingdonshire #

dismissed

Appeal 6008987, 29 September 2026, ¶29

settlement for the purposes of the Framework Glossary definition, and it also refers to it as a village in its Officer Report

The plan's own threshold for a built-up area was 30 homes and Hamerton had about 24 (¶6); the inspector nevertheless treated it as a settlement and the site as outside it.

Drayton, Vale of White Horse #

allowed

Appeal 6005108, 11 September 2026, ¶137

Drayton falls within the definition of a settlement identified within Annex B and the site lies outside its built up area.

A Larger Village in the plan; 31 homes allowed under S5.

Stretton-on-Fosse, Stratford-on-Avon #

approved

Council 26/01687/FUL, 29 September 2026, p.4

Stretton-on-Fosse is predominantly built-up with a concentrated area of residential development that clearly has a physical confines which transitions from built form to open land.

A village with no Built-Up Area Boundary in the Core Strategy, held a settlement on the ground after the officer quoted the definition, including the Green Belt sentence; the village is not in the Green Belt, so it did not bite.

A washed-over village treated as a settlement, or the question not asked #

Bledlow Ridge, Buckinghamshire #

dismissed

Appeal 6010097, 30 September 2026, ¶15

As the proposal is within a settlement, it benefits from the in-principle support provided by policies S3 and S4 of the Framework.

A Green Belt site inside a defined settlement boundary, run through S4. The Green Belt question was left undecided because the appeal failed on heritage (¶20). Do not cite it as S4 authority for a Green Belt village.

Earlswood, Stratford-on-Avon #

refused

Council 26/01542/FUL, 2 October 2026, p.3

The application site is within the BUAB of Earlswood as defined of page 8 of the Tanworth in Arden Neighbourhood Development Plan. I therefore find the site is an acceptable location for housing

Eight days after another officer applied the exclusion in the same village (above), this report applied S4 and L2(1)(d) and never mentioned Annex B.

Tanworth-in-Arden, Stratford-on-Avon #

approved

Council 26/00918/PIP, 11 September 2026, TR3

The settlement of Tanworth-in-Arden contains a primary school, a church, village hall, public house/restaurant including post office, mechanic garage, dental clinic, bowls club, tennis club and recreation ground.

A Category 4 Local Service Village washed over by the Green Belt, called a settlement throughout; the report never asked the Annex B question. The route ran through GB7(1)(g), where the word does not matter, so the result did not turn on it.

Not listed: letters that use "Annex B" only for other glossary terms (deliverable sites, previously developed land, grey belt), two decisions that applied a local plan's own test for a settlement rather than the Framework's (Dunmere, Roche), and washed-over villages where the letter applied GB7 without discussing the definition. A fuller list of Stratford-on-Avon's own decisions in washed-over villages is on the Stratford note.