Planning policy has long required special justification for isolated homes in the countryside.
The new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) identifies limited circumstances in which such homes may be supported. These include, among others, proposals where there is an essential need for a rural worker’s dwelling, those involving the reuse of redundant or disused buildings and homes where the design is of exceptional quality.
The approach is not new. Previous versions of the NPPF, and before that PPS7 (2004) and PPG7 (1997), sought to avoid isolated homes in the countryside unless particular special circumstances applied.
Establishing whether a new home would be “isolated” has been critical to the outcome of many planning applications and has generated debate over the years.
Neither PPG7, PPS7 nor previous versions of the NPPF defined what constituted an “isolated” home and the meaning of the term was considered by the courts.
In Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2018] EWCA Civ 610, the Court of Appeal concluded that the relevant question was whether a proposed dwelling would be isolated in the sense of being physically separate or remote from a settlement. Whether a group of dwellings constituted a settlement for the purposes of the then policy was a matter of fact and planning judgement.
This approach was confirmed in City & Country Bramshill Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2021] EWCA Civ 320. The presence of other dwellings or buildings nearby did not necessarily prevent a proposed home from being isolated. The relevant consideration was whether the proposed development would be physically isolated from a settlement, rather than from other dwellings. Whether a group or cluster of dwellings constituted a settlement remained a matter of fact and planning judgement.
The new NPPF, published on 17 August 2026, addresses the issue more directly by defining which homes should be treated as isolated for the purposes of national planning policy.
National decision-making policy S5 establishes the approach to development outside settlements. It identifies certain forms of development that should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the NPPF.
However, policy S5(3) states that “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.”
The new wording defines isolated homes as those lying outside settlements or groups of houses. This differs from previous national policy which did not define what was meant by “isolated”.
The wording must also be read alongside the new definition of “settlement” in the glossary of the NPPF. This includes cities, towns, villages and other predominantly built-up areas, together with areas defined as settlements in the development plan. It excludes hamlets and scattered groups of houses outside predominantly built-up areas unless they are specifically defined as settlements in the development plan.
The NPPF therefore distinguishes between settlements and groups of houses outside settlements. Only homes falling outside both are treated as isolated under policy S5(3).
The distinction could be particularly important in relation to hamlets. Although a hamlet outside a predominantly built-up area will not generally constitute a settlement under the glossary definition, it may nevertheless amount to a group of houses. A proposed home lying within that group would not fall within the definition of an isolated home under policy S5(3). Conversely, a home lying outside the group would be isolated for the purposes of the policy, even if it were not physically remote from it.
This links directly to policy S5(1)(e), which identifies limited infilling within groups of houses as a form of development that should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the NPPF. A site within a group of houses may, therefore, have a policy route under S5(1)(e), whereas a site outside that group will be treated as an isolated home and will need to be considered in accordance with policy HO11.
The revised wording provides a clearer starting point. Planning judgement, however, is likely to remain when determining what constitutes a “group of houses”, where the group begins and ends, and whether a particular site is within or outside that group. Distance, intervening land and the pattern of development may remain relevant to that assessment, but only in determining the extent of the group.
If you have a potential site for development in the countryside, Acorn Rural Property Consultants can advise on how the new NPPF applies and whether there may be a suitable route to planning permission. Please contact us on 01884 212380 or email briandinnis@acornrpc.co.uk to discuss your proposal.
