On 17 September 2026, an Inspector dismissed an appeal for 14 homes at the edge of Haslemere in Surrey, despite strong in-principle support under the NPPF 2026.

The site was beside the settlement and within walking distance of a well-connected station. Eight homes would have been social rented, and the council had only 1.28 years of their 5 year housing land supply. The scheme met every part of the station-led location test.

But around 70% of the site lay within the Surrey Hills National Landscape. The Inspector found  considerable landscape harm that substantially outweighed the contribution to housing supply

Three weeks later, the Minister of State for Housing and Planning wrote to the Planning Inspectorate. His letter reinforced the “universal tilt” towards approval within settlements and for development outside settlements that the NPPF 2026 supports in principle.

Together, the decision and the letter show that stronger support for development comes with safeguards that can still justify refusal.

This article explains what the letter means, which policies support approval and why appeals still fail, drawing on recent decisions issued between 17 September and 7 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. 

His letter emphasises that the NPPF 2026’s support for development should shape decisions, with Inspectors explaining how the new policies affect the planning balance.

The Minister set out four practical objectives:

For applicants, the letter reinforces that the case for approval extends beyond a housing supply shortfall. An application should explain why the NPPF 2026 supports the proposal in its location, how it addresses the relevant safeguards and what benefits it would deliver.

Those benefits need evidence. The application should identify the housing needs it would meet or the business investment it would enable, and explain how delivery would be secured. This allows the Inspector to give each benefit the weight national policy requires.

The letter does not amend the NPPF 2026 or instruct Inspectors to allow individual appeals. It recognises their independent judgement on the evidence, and strong policy support can still be outweighed by harm assessed under the relevant safeguards.

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 new framework.

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.

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.

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) says S5 does not apply in the Green Belt or on Local Green Space. Those proposals are determined under the Green Belt and Local Green Space policies first. Where a proposal is found not to be inappropriate development through HC8 and GB7, S5(5) brings the presumption back into play, in directing that a proposal should be approved unless its benefits would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, assessed against the Framework’s national decision-making policies and applying paragraph 2 of S5. 

On a first reading, this looks contradictory: a policy that says it does not apply, then directs the decision maker towards approval. In practice, it works as a sequence. The Green Belt or Local Green Space test is the gateway. A proposal that fails it never reaches the presumption. A proposal that passes it is weighed on a balance tilted towards approval.

That is why, in my view, the inappropriateness finding is the decisive issue for most Green Belt appeals. It determines which balance the Inspector applies.

The Green Belt route has its own growing body of Grey Belt appeals and different tests. 

A village in the Green Belt: Fobbing

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.

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 appeals combine a clearly established route with the benefits the NPPF 2026 tells Inspectors to weigh heavily, supported by evidence that those benefits are tangible and secured.

Several national decision-making policies prescribe specific weight rather than leaving it to thejudgement of individual inspectors:

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 appealants position on employment land and market dynamics, and that an unmet need for employment land existed, and gave substantial weight under E2 to the economic benefits. 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 state that development should be refused in specific circumstances. Under S4(2)(c) and S5(2), failing one of these makes it likely that the benefits are substantially outweighed. In practice, they operate more like gates than weights. Examples 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, Haslemere GU27 2PH. Application reference: WA/2025/01986, Waverley Borough Council. 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.

Your professional team should identify which safeguards require evidence of compliance and which harms can be weighed against the scheme’s benefits.

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

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 places. It makes early preparation more valuable: landscape evidence, heritage sections, flood assessments and legal mechanisms should shape the application, rather than be left for an appeal team to resolve under tighter procedural limits.

Under the previous framework, out-of-date policies could engage the tilted balance, but the appellant still had to address the site’s harms. Under the new framework, the tilt applies more widely, so I expect disputes to focus increasingly on specific harms and the safeguards that remain.

I also expect the definition of “physically well related” to become one of the most contested phrases in the NPPF 2026. The Bilsborrow and Aston Clinton decisions already read it to include the quality of the proposal, not just distance. If that reading holds, design will become part of the location test as well as a separate one.

As architects and town planners, we review refusal reasons against the current policies and test whether the drawings, assessments and obligations can support an appeal. Where changes to the proposal or further evidence are needed, we can advise on a stronger revised application.

If your scheme has been refused, a focused review can help you decide whether to proceed with a planning appeal or revise the application. No consultant can promise the outcome.