Planning appeal decisions under the NPPF 2026: The deciding factors

On 17 September 2026, an Inspector dismissed an appeal for 14 homes at the edge of Haslemere, despite the scheme meeting the NPPF 2026’s station-led location test.

Eight homes would have been for social rent and the council had only 1.28 years of housing land supply. However, around 70% of the site lay within the Surrey Hills National Landscape, and the Inspector found that the landscape harm substantially outweighed the housing benefits.

Less than three weeks later, the Housing and Planning Minister wrote to the Planning Inspectorate, signalling that the government wants the new Framework’s support for appropriate development to influence decisions quickly and consistently.

This article explains what the letter means, which policies support approval and why appeals still fail, drawing on recent decisions issued between 18 August and 13 October 2026.

The Minister of State for Housing and Planning, The Rt Hon Matthew Pennycook MP, has issued the letter to Graham Stallwood, Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate. 

The letter does not amend the NPPF 2026, but clearly sets out how the government expects it to operate. The revised presumption should be embedded in appeals and applications considered by the Planning Inspectorate, enabling appropriate development and producing more consistent, certain and timely decisions.

The Minister highlighted four elements of the NPPF 2026 that should guide its implementation:

The government’s direction is clearly pro-development. The Minister wants the Planning Inspectorate to give practical effect to a framework designed to increase housing supply, unlock economic growth and approve appropriate development unless its benefits are substantially outweighed by adverse effects.

Applicants and appellants should therefore identify the supported policy route and applicable planning balance, address each relevant safeguard and provide evidence of the accommodation needs, economic benefits and regeneration benefits the proposal would deliver. Planning statements should also explain how those benefits and any necessary mitigation will be secured.

The Minister wants the framework’s support for housing and economic growth to influence real decisions quickly, rather than remaining an aspiration that is weakened through cautious or inconsistent implementation.

Its influence will be tested by whether subsequent decisions consistently:

To understand what this means in practice, we first need to examine how an Inspector should assess an appeal under the NPPF 2026.

The statutory starting point has not moved. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 still requires the appeal to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

As part of the government’s planning reforms aimed at increasing housing delivery, the NPPF 2026 changes how much weight older local policies retain and how national policies structure the planning balance. 

Annex A, paragraph 2 says development plan policies, or parts of them, that are materially inconsistent with national decision-making policies should be given very limited weight, unless they were examined and adopted or made against the NPPF 2026. Other policies should not lose weight simply because they predate it.

Calling the local plan out of date is not enough. The decision maker must identify the precise inconsistency that a local policy presents with national policy. A policy might be out of date as a whole or in part. Buntingford, discussed under the unmet need route below, illustrates why a restrictive settlement policy may lose weight while other safeguards remain relevant.

An emerging development plan may introduce a further consideration under HO13(4). Where the plan proposes strategic allocations, this policy requires proposals to be consistent with their intended scale, location and phasing, regardless of how far the plan has progressed. HO13(5) specifies that this provision applies to strategic sites.

This creates an important distinction from the ordinary prematurity test under DM4(2), which generally requires an emerging plan to be at an advanced stage. Because HO13(4) expressly operates notwithstanding that test, demonstrating that a plan is too early to justify a conventional prematurity objection may not resolve the separate issue of consistency with its strategic allocations.

The extent of this requirement needs careful interpretation, particularly where a proposal lies outside an emerging allocation but may affect its delivery.

Your professional team should identify the claimed inconsistency and assess whether the proposal would affect access, infrastructure, comprehensive development or phasing. Any objection should explain how that conflict would arise, supported by evidence of the relationship between the proposal and the emerging allocation.

Annex A, paragraph 1 makes the NPPF 2026 a material consideration from the date of publication. For live and pending planning applications, including those submitted before 17 August 2026, the national policies must be addressed before a decision is made.

The same applies to an undetermined appeal: where the Inspector invites comments on the new framework, your professional team should explain how its policies affect the case.  The Four Winds decision below records that both main parties were invited to comment on the revised framework before determination.

The first question in any appeal is which part of policy S3 applies, because the route decides the test. A scheme within a settlement goes to S4, a scheme outside settlements goes to S5, and a scheme in the Green Belt or on Local Green Space goes to the Green Belt policies first.

Getting this wrong at the outset can make an otherwise strong case irrelevant.

Policy S4 is the broadest route. Development within settlements should be approved unless the benefits would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects, assessed against the national decision-making policies.

S4 then lists circumstances in which the benefits are likely to be substantially outweighed. These include a substantial adverse impact on allocated or safeguarded land, recreational land, Local Green Space, important biodiversity sites, protected landscapes or residential curtilages, and specific conflict with a national policy that identifies circumstances where development should be refused.

Whether a site falls within a settlement requires evidence, particularly where no settlement boundary is defined. In the Clavering decision, discussed under flood risk below, the Inspector found the site within the village’s built area and applied S4; that starting point did not outweigh the remaining harms.

Outside settlements, only listed forms of development benefit from the tilt. For most developers, three categories matter most:

Annex A, paragraph 3 qualifies the housing route. Where a council demonstrates a five-year supply with the appropriate buffer and its HDT result is more than 75%, a standard method figure above the adopted housing requirement is not, by itself, evidence of unmet need under S5(1)(j) for five years from the plan’s adoption. 

For example, in the Haslemere case, examined under protected landscape harm below, the proposal met the station-related S5(1)(h) route but still failed the subsequent planning balance.

At Four Winds, The Common, Melbourne DE73 8DH (6011217, allowed 23 September 2026; application DMPA/2026/0030), permission in principle was granted for one dwelling in a side garden outside the settlement boundary.

The Inspector applied S5(1)(d), finding the site previously developed because the residential garden exclusion did not apply outside a built-up area. Good accessibility and limited harm to rural character supported approval despite local policy conflict.

The claimed self-build benefit received only limited weight because no mechanism secured it. This is a site-specific interpretation, not a rule that every garden beyond a settlement boundary qualifies.

Buntingford East Hertfordshire (6008238, allowed 24 September 2026), on land north of the A507, proposed up to 600 homes, 60 units for older people, a local centre and a first school outside the settlement, across the A10.

With a housing supply of 2.21-2.88 years, S5(1)(j)’s unmet need test was met. The Inspector also found the development would be physically well related to Buntingford: existing and proposed bridges, intervisibility with housing, the A10’s position in a cutting and no intervening countryside which overcame the apparent separation.

Under Annex A, paragraph 2, restrictive settlement policies received limited weight because they were materially inconsistent with S5.

Limited landscape harm and harm to a Grade II* church, assessed under HE5 as being at the lower end of less than substantial, did not cumulatively substantially outweigh the very substantial benefits.

S5(1)(j) uses “including, but not limited to” when identifying housing supply and HDT failures as evidence of unmet need. Whether other housing needs can independently engage this route remains an important interpretation issue.

At land north of Spring Hill, Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor (6005809, allowed 14 September 2026), the Inspector allowed up to 249 homes, including 35% affordable housing. The council retained a marginal five-year supply and its HDT results exceeded 75%. The Inspector treated the listed indicators as non-exhaustive and found that the marginal supply position and significant unmet affordable housing need together satisfied S5(1)(j).

That decision supports a wider reading, but does not establish that affordable housing need alone will always engage the presumption. A government answer published on 15 September confirmed that authorities meeting both thresholds would not engage it through those indicators, without expressly resolving every alternative form of need.

The distinction also matters in the Green Belt. Footnote 41 to GB7 defines unmet housing need specifically by reference to a five-year supply shortfall or an HDT result below 75%. Evidence supporting an argument under S5(1)(j) should therefore not be assumed to satisfy the separate Grey Belt test.

Development outside settlements that falls outside the list is not automatically refused. Policy S5(4) allows approval in exceptional circumstances where the benefits would substantially outweigh the adverse effects, including effects on the character of the countryside and on sustainable patterns of movement.

The direction of the test reverses. Under S5(1), the benefits must not be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects. Under S5(4), the benefits must substantially outweigh the adverse effects.

Aston Clinton Buckinghamshire (6008253, allowed 24 September 2026), on land east of College Road South, sought outline permission for up to 66 homes on fields beyond the village boundary.

The Inspector found the scheme was not physically well related to the settlement because of its limited harm to the village’s setting, so it did not meet S5(1)(j). The Inspector then applied S5(4). With a substantial housing supply shortfall, 25% affordable housing and moderate landscape harm, the decision concludes that the benefits substantially outweighed the adverse effects, and that they provided clear justification for the limited conflict with DP3.

A completed section 106 agreement secured habitat mitigation for the Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation through Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) and Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) contributions.

Policy S5(5) requires proposals in the Green Belt or on Local Green Space to pass the relevant designation-specific tests before they can benefit from the presumption in favour of approval. The starting point is therefore the Green Belt and Local Green Space policies, rather than S5’s routes for development outside settlements.

If a proposal is found not to be inappropriate development under HC8 and GB7, S5(5) brings the presumption into play. It should then be approved unless its benefits would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects, assessed against the Framework’s national decision-making policies and applying S5(2).

The wording can seem contradictory: S5 initially excludes these proposals, then provides a route back to the presumption. Read as a sequence, however, the logic becomes clearer. The Green Belt or Local Green Space test comes first; passing it opens the door to a planning balance tilted towards approval. Failing it leaves the proposal subject to the requirement to demonstrate very special circumstances.

That is why, in my view, whether development is inappropriate is often the pivotal question in a Green Belt appeal. It determines which planning balance the Inspector applies and what the applicant must demonstrate. The growing body of Grey Belt appeals shows how this distinction affects outcomes in practice.

Fobbing Thurrock (6009919, dismissed 29 September 2026) illustrates why a village washed over by the Green Belt does not use the S4 settlement route. Wilmslow shows a qualifying Grey Belt proposal; Wivelsfield Green illustrates the separate assessment of works within Local Green Space. The starting point is the applicable policy route, rather than whether the site appears to sit within a settlement.

In that appeal, the Inspector accepted that the site was Grey Belt and sustainably located, but the proposed annexe and pool failed the unmet-need test. General housing pressures and a possible future bungalow did not establish a need for the development actually proposed. Grey Belt classification opened a route to approval, but did not satisfy its remaining tests.

At Racecourse Road/Greaves Road, Wilmslow SK9 5LW (6008576, allowed 5 October 2026; application 25/4183/PIP), the Inspector granted permission in principle for two homes.

Surrounding development contained the small site, so it did not strongly contribute to the disputed sprawl purpose. The council accepted the housing shortfall and sustainable location, and the scheme was not a major development. GB7(1)(g) was satisfied; the remaining local policy conflict did not substantially outweigh the benefits of meeting demand for housing supply. Technical details consent was still required.

At land south of Green Road, Wivelsfield Green RH17 7QL (6005671, allowed 6 October 2026; application LW/24/0820), an outline scheme for up to 150 homes included part of its access road within Local Green Space.

The homes were not proposed within the designated area. Applying HC8 and GB7’s transport infrastructure exception, the Inspector found the low-profile road’s effect on openness was minimised and would not be inappropriate development. The distinction was between the wider housing scheme and the specific works within the protected land. Accordingly, the presumption under S5(5) was met.

Policy S6 says benefits to housing supply are likely to be substantially outweighed where a scheme conflicts with a neighbourhood plan that became part of the development plan five years or less before the decision and contains allocations to meet its housing requirement. Both conditions must apply.

At land south of Ellison Close, Stanstead Road, Hunsdon (6008063, dismissed 6 October 2026; application 3/25/1383/OUT), the proposal was for up to seven homes.

The 2022 neighbourhood plan contained an allocation meeting its residual housing requirement, so S6 applied despite the council’s 3.4-3.7 years of housing supply. Harm to a valued hedgerow, an ash tree and the village’s rural setting also conflicted with DP3.

The Inspector expressly found that DP3 would justify refusal even without S6: the neighbourhood plan was a compounding reason, rather than the sole cause for the appeal dismissal.

The strongest planning applications and appeals combine a clear policy route with the benefits the NPPF 2026 requires decision makers to weigh heavily.

From our own projects and the approved applications we have assessed, we have seen this approach help contentious proposals secure permission. The deciding factor is the evidence: it must show what the benefits are, who they serve and how their delivery is secured.

Several national decision-making policies require substantial weight to be given to particular considerations. This gives applicants a stronger basis for explaining the importance of their proposal’s benefits, but the final balance still requires judgement.

The same expression also applies to designated heritage conservation, protected landscapes and harm caused by inappropriate Green Belt development. Two considerations attracting substantial weight do not necessarily carry equal weight in a particular case. Their significance depends on the evidence, the relevant policy tests and any statutory duties.

Your planning consultant should demonstrate why the proposal’s benefits justify approval despite the identified harms, drawing on evidence of their scale, significance and delivery. Simply stating that housing attracts substantial weight does not explain why those benefits should prevail in the planning balance.

The following policies give specific direction on the weight attached to benefits:

HO7 requires evidenced accommodation needs, so the appeal should explain which needs the proposed homes would meet. The housing type, tenure and delivery arrangements may materially affect the weight given to that benefit.

West Wickham illustrates how evidenced need, and HO7, can outweigh harm to living conditions. Its outcome does not remove the need to assess that harm.

West Wickham Bromley (6007183, allowed 25 September 2026), at Glebe Court, proposed 34 retirement living flats in a part three, part four storey building replacing a former care home.

Three lower ground floor flats would have deficient daylight and outlook. The Inspector recorded conflict with P3 but noted it does not direct refusal. With a supply of 1.93 years, an undisputed need for older people’s housing and substantial weight under HO7, the harm did not substantially outweigh the benefits.

The Inspector preferred the council’s viability evidence, required a £1.175 million affordable housing payment and declined to apply Vacant Building Credit.

Housing delivery may depend on whether policy requirements can be met viably. Where an appeal relies on a viability appraisal, the evidence must explain the position on that particular site and any review mechanism needed to capture a later improvement.

Staplehurst Maidstone (6008294, allowed 5 October 2026), on land west of Lodge Road, was a hybrid scheme for 81 homes and an outline commercial unit of up to 1,000 sqm on an allocated site. It offered no affordable housing against a 40% target.

The council accepted that a policy-compliant scheme was unviable, and the Inspector placed weight on the site-specific appraisal under DM5. With a supply of 4.5 years, leaving the allocation undelivered would further weaken the housing position.

A section 106 agreement secured a viability review.

Although the Inspector cited S4 correctly, the conclusion used the former NPPF 2024 balance. Any statement or appeal decision should apply the current test precisely. The distinction matters because the wording determines which side of the planning balance must substantially outweigh the other.

Substantial weight under E2 does not remove the need for acceptable design, a suitable location and enforceable mitigation. The following decisions show how the extent of harm and the ability to control it affect the outcome.

Sandholme East Riding of Yorkshire (6012230, allowed 7 October 2026), on land at Mill Lane, concerned a retrospective change of use to an aggregate haulage and storage yard outside development limits.

The Inspector accepted the location was suitable because of road and motorway access, the limited scale and evidence that no alternative site was available. Planting could soften localised landscape harm. Although DM8 gives substantial weight to intentional unauthorised development, the benefits substantially outweighed the limited harm in all other respects.

A strict condition required the use to cease if a landscaping and lighting scheme was not approved and implemented. The decision identifies no S5 category; its reasoning reads closest to S5(4).

Bilsborrow Wyre (6007133, dismissed 25 September 2026), on land at Brock off Garstang Road, sought outline permission for flexible light industrial and storage units on about 2.44 hectares outside the village.

The Inspector accepted the appellant’s case on employment land availability and market conditions, finding that an unmet need existed and giving substantial weight to the proposal’s economic benefits under E2.

But the decision interprets “physically well related” in S5(1)(j) to include how the development itself would relate to its surroundings. The scale, massing and long frontage would significantly harm a valued open break in the village. The council’s design policy retained its weight because it was not materially inconsistent with DP3.

The resulting conflict with DP3, which directs refusal without clear justification, engaged S5(2).

The NPPF 2026 supports more intensive development in sustainable locations, but DP3 makes design a test, not a preference. Capacity and character have to be reconciled under the NPPF 2026 housing density and design rules before a unit count becomes reliable. 

At appeal, design evidence should show how the scheme responds to context, not merely assert that it does. 

The Brigsley decision shows why a scheme can fail by making too little use of its site, alongside other constraints. At land at Mushroom Lane, Brigsley DN37 0BJ (6009363, dismissed 1 October 2026; application DM/0749/25/OUT), outline permission was sought for nine homes on about 1.3 hectares.

The stated density was 6.8 dwellings per hectare gross; no net figure was supplied. Even allowing for landscaping, biodiversity areas and drainage, the Inspector found very low net density and conflict with L3’s efficient use requirement. Poor connectivity and landscape harm also weighed against the scheme. 

The lesson is to justify capacity at the outset and calculate the relevant density, rather than assume matching nearby low-density housing will suffice.

Supported in principle means your scheme has reached the decision making balance. It does not mean that balance will favour you.

The distinction is between policies that direct refusal in specific circumstances and harms that are weighed against the benefits.

Some national decision-making policies expressly require refusal in defined circumstances. Under S4(2)(c) and S5(2), failing to comply with one of these makes it likely that adverse effects substantially outweigh the benefits. The precise wording matters, however, because each policy may allow particular exceptions or justification.

The NPPF 2026 does not bring these policies together in a single list, so your planning consultant should identify the relevant provisions and explain how they apply to your proposal.

For heritage, HE6(5) expressly directs refusal where substantial harm would occur unless its tests are met. HE6(4), by comparison, requires harm to be weighed against public benefits.

Similarly, N4(2) sets an express refusal test for major development within a Protected Landscape, while N4(4) requires development within its setting to avoid or minimise adverse impacts. These distinctions affect both the evidence required and how the planning balance is assessed.

The same care is needed when applying design policy to an outline application. Reserving detailed matters does not remove the need to demonstrate an acceptable relationship with the site’s context. Your professional team should explain what the proposed parameters establish and which design matters can properly be resolved at reserved matters stage.

Examples of policies that expressly direct refusal include:

The examples below show the landscape, habitat, heritage and flood issues in practice. Brigsley above illustrates L3, while Bilsborrow illustrates DP3.

A qualifying location does not settle the effect on a protected landscape. The professional team must assess the landscape itself and its setting, rather than assume planting can make the development acceptable.

Haslemere Waverley (6006581, dismissed 17 September 2026), concerned an outline proposal for 14 homes at Longdene House, Hedgehog Lane. The Inspector accepted every element of S5(1)(h), the station-related location route.

The benefits included eight social rented homes, six secured self-build or custom-build plots and a housing supply of only 1.28 years. These attracted substantial weight under HO7. But around 70% of the site lay within the Surrey Hills National Landscape, and development would cause considerable harm to its landscape character and setting under N4(1) and N4(4).

The Inspector also distinguished secured self-build plots from evidence that the completed homes would be affordable; the latter had not been demonstrated.

The permanent landscape harm substantially outweighed the benefits. Screening would not remove the change to the landscape itself.

Habitat mitigation must be secured through the permission actually being sought. For a two-stage consent, the legal wording needs to connect the obligation to the later stage at which development can proceed.

The Hayloft Slade Heath (6009140, dismissed 6 October 2026), concerned permission in principle for eight to nine homes at The Hayloft, Brinsford Lane, Slade Heath, Wolverhampton WV10 7PR. 

The Inspector accepted that the proposal was not inappropriate Green Belt development under GB7(1)(g). However, recreational pressure on Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation required mitigation.

The undertaking offered a payment before development began, but defined the development by reference to the permission-in-principle application alone. It did not securely link the payment to the subsequent technical details consent.

Without a secure link to technical details consent, the Inspector could not rule out an adverse effect on the SAC’s integrity. N6(1)(a) remained decisive despite substantial benefits to housing supply. Permission in principle does not allow construction; technical details consent is also required. The planning obligation’s definitions and payment triggers need to cover both stages.

Heritage evidence needs to show how the proposal would affect the significance of the asset and its setting. Sections and other proportionate drawings can reveal relationships that an attractive visualisation leaves unclear.

Guildford (6007054, dismissed 21 September 2026), at 2 Chantry View Road, proposed a new house in the garden of a Grade II listed former farmhouse, within the settlement.

The plot met L2’s criteria for development within existing plots, and the design responded to its context. A housing supply of 2.98 years supported substantial weight under HO7.

However, the house would appear dominant beside a curtilage-listed outbuilding that is a key part of the listed building’s setting. The appellant had supplied computer-generated images but no sections showing that relationship.

The moderate heritage harm carried considerable importance and weight under HE6. A proportionate Heritage Impact Assessment, supported by sections through the new house and outbuilding, would have allowed the relationship to be tested more clearly.

A benefit to housing supply cannot substitute for evidence of safe access or an applicable flood risk test. Any claimed exemption must also be established through the appropriate evidence and commitments.

Clavering Uttlesford (6010951, dismissed 1 October 2026), on land north of the Bower House, proposed one self-build dwelling. The Inspector found the site was within the village’s built area, so S4 applied, and gave substantial weight to the new home.

But the access lay in Flood Zones 2 and 3, with flood depths of around 682mm in the design event. No sequential test had been carried out, and the flood risk assessment did not show safe access or escape. The unilateral undertaking intended to secure self-build status lacked title evidence, a site plan and an occupation requirement, so the scheme could not rely on the self-build exemption from Biodiversity Net Gain.

Together, the flood risk failures and unsecured exemption substantially outweighed the benefits.

Other policies describe harm that must be weighed, rather than a line that must not be crossed. Less than substantial harm to a heritage asset is weighed against public benefits under HE6(4). Effects on living conditions are assessed under P3.

West Wickham, discussed under evidenced housing need above, illustrates this balance. Guildford shows that a harm which is weighed can still be decisive when heritage significance is affected.

The distinction changes what your professional team needs to demonstrate. Where a safeguard requires compliance, evidence of housing need alone cannot resolve the issue. Where harm is weighed against benefits, the case must explain the extent of that harm and why the benefits justify approval.

The precise policy wording matters. N6 reflects the Habitats Regulations, S5(2) says conflict with a refusal-directing policy makes it likely that benefits are substantially outweighed, and DP3(3) allows clear justification. These policies should therefore not all be treated as absolute prohibitions.

For the planning application your team is preparing, the lesson is to address these tests before submission. The assessments, drawings and mitigation should answer the issues likely to determine the decision, giving the council a clearer basis for approval and preparing the case to withstand scrutiny if an appeal becomes necessary.

A council’s planning approval rates describe outcomes across applications decided, while appeal outcomes concern the selected group of cases that reach an Inspector. Assessing a refusal therefore requires comparison with decisions involving the same consent route, policy tests and site constraints.

Three conclusions follow from these decisions:

Mitigation must follow the consent route. Aston Clinton secured habitat mitigation through a completed section 106 agreement; The Hayloft’s undertaking left a gap between permission in principle and technical details consent. An offered payment is only useful if its delivery is legally secured.

Location and design can overlap. Aston Clinton and Bilsborrow both failed the “physically well related” test, but only Aston Clinton justified approval under S5(4). Where the location route fails, the benefits must meet the harder balance and any design conflict still needs clear justification.

Strong benefits from meeting demand for housing does not neutralise every constraint. Buntingford and Haslemere both had favourable location routes and severe supply shortfalls. Haslemere’s protected landscape harm nevertheless defeated the scheme. The site’s constraints must inform the proposal from the outset.

An appeal may be the stronger route where the refusal turns on a disputed judgement or policy interpretation that the submitted evidence can answer. A revised application may be preferable where success requires material design changes or new technical evidence that the appeal procedure will not admit.

An appeal is not intended to evolve a scheme. At Stocksmoor Kirklees (3375000, allowed 1 October 2026), the Inspector refused to consider a late reduction from 50 to 49 homes. At Bilsborrow, some amendments were accepted, but others were rejected because they would cause procedural unfairness.

Resolve missing evidence before determination wherever possible. After refusal, check the guide applicable to the application date and allocated procedure. For applications submitted on or after 1 April 2026, the Part 1 written procedure generally excludes new evidence, with limited exceptions for material changes in circumstances. A previously missing technical report will not ordinarily qualify.

Before committing to an appeal or redesign, your professional team should:

Material design changes or inadmissible new evidence may favour a revised application. A completed obligation may still be possible at appeal, subject to submission requirements. Check the appeal deadline before choosing either route.

Under the Planning Practice Guidance, costs may be awarded only where unreasonable behaviour has caused unnecessary or wasted expense. At Haslemere, the Inspector found the council’s committee had been given incorrect advice, yet refused costs because it had not caused wasted appeal expense.

Treat costs as a check on conduct, not a lever for outcomes.

I welcome the stronger support for appropriate development in sustainable locations. In complex planning applications, making effective use of that support requires the planning strategy, design and technical evidence to develop together.

Landscape assessments, sections showing heritage relationships, flood risk evidence and enforceable mitigation should inform the proposal from the outset. Leaving a decisive issue unresolved until appeal may narrow the options available under tighter procedural limits.

The wider application of the tilt also changes where I expect disputes to arise. Under the previous framework, establishing that relevant policies were out of date could be central to engaging the favourable balance, although the site’s harms still required assessment.

Under the NPPF 2026, more proposals benefit from that balance. Disputes are therefore likely to focus increasingly on the extent of particular harms, the safeguards they engage and whether the proposed mitigation addresses them.

“Physically well related” illustrates how those questions can overlap. HO10 distinguishes adjoining a settlement from being physically well related to it, indicating that a shared boundary is not essential.

Yet Aston Clinton shows that proximity and access to services may not be sufficient either: the Inspector also considered the proposal’s effect on the village’s setting. A site’s relationship with a settlement may therefore depend partly on what is proposed, as well as where it sits.

When preparing applications, we need to make that relationship clear through the design and supporting evidence. This means examining intervening land, physical barriers, pedestrian connections and views, then showing how the layout, scale and landscaping would form an appropriate settlement edge.

The evidence should distinguish existing connections from improvements the development would deliver, with those improvements secured where necessary. While the early decisions have yet to establish a settled interpretation, a carefully evidenced case gives the decision maker a firmer basis for assessing both the location and the proposal’s integration with its surroundings.

As architects and town planners⁠, we prepare applications with the scrutiny of both the council and a potential appeal in mind. The planning strategy, design, technical assessments and legal obligations should form a coherent case, addressing the issues most likely to determine the outcome.

A refusal does not necessarily expose a weakness in that case. Errors in policy interpretation, incomplete consideration of evidence or disputed planning judgements may lead a local authority to refuse a proposal that an Inspector subsequently approves. The task is to establish whether the refusal reasons withstand examination against the relevant policies and evidence.

That assessment also informs whether an appeal is the appropriate response. Where the submitted proposal can be defended, a planning appeal⁠ may provide the stronger route. Where material design changes or further technical work would resolve the decisive concerns, a revised application may offer a more effective path to permission.

Our advice rests on that distinction: identifying what can be challenged, what needs to change and which procedure allows the case to be resolved most effectively.