PARAGRAPHS 84 & 139
Paragraph 84 of the NPPF is permissive of “isolated” new dwellings in the countryside in certain circumstances, including criterion (e) where the design is of exceptional quality, in that it is truly outstanding, reflecting the highest standards in architecture, and would help to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; and would significantly enhance its immediate setting, and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.
The word ‘isolated’ is not defined in the NPPF. However, its meaning was the subject of two court judgements handed down in 2017 and 2018 at the time when the policy relating to isolated dwellings in the countryside was contained in paragraph 55 of the then NPPF (2012), and more recently a third judgement which was made at the time when the policy was contained in paragraph 79 of the then NPPF (2019).
In Braintree District Council v SSCLG & Ors [2017] EWHC 2743 (Admin) (2017) the Judge found “isolated” should be given its ordinary objective meaning of “far away from other places, buildings or people; remote” (Oxford Concise English Dictionary). The Judge also found “The immediate context is the distinction in NPPF 55 between “rural communities”, “settlements” and “villages” on the one hand, and “the countryside” on the other. This suggests that “isolated homes in the countryside” are not in communities and settlements and so the distinction between the two is primarily spatial/physical. At the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Lindblom held that: -
““31…in its particular context in paragraph 55 of the NPPF, the word ‘isolated’ in the phrase ‘isolated homes in the countryside’ simply connotes a dwelling that is physically separate or remote from a settlement…”
“32. What constitutes a settlement for these purposes is also left undefined in the NPPF. The NPPF contains no definitions of a “community”, a “settlement”, or a “village”. There is no specified minimum number of dwellings, or population. It is not said that a settlement or development boundary must have been fixed in an adopted or emerging local plan, or that only the land and buildings within that settlement or development boundary will constitute the settlement. In my view a settlement would not necessarily exclude a hamlet or a cluster of dwellings, without, for example, a shop or post office of its own, or a school or community hall or a public house nearby, or public transport within easy reach. Whether, in a particular case, a group of dwellings constitutes a settlement, or a “village”, for the purposes of the policy will again be a matter of fact and planning judgment for the decision-maker. In the second sentence of paragraph 55 the policy acknowledges that development in one village may “support services” in another. It does not stipulate that to be a “village”, a settlement must have any “services” of its own, let alone “services” of any specified kind.””
In the subsequent Court of Appeal judgement handed down in March 2021 between City & Country Bramshill Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Others, Sir Keith Lindblom (Senior President of Tribunals) held that: -
“33…To adopt remoteness from other dwellings, instead of remoteness from a settlement, as the test for “isolated homes in the countryside” would seem inconsistent with the Government’s evident intention in producing the policy in paragraph 79. It would mean, presumably, that the policy would not apply to a development of housing in the countryside – large or small – on land next to an individual dwelling remote from the nearest settlement, because although the new homes might be “isolated” from the settlement, they would not be “isolated” from existing development. It would prevent the policy from applying to the development of additional dwellings, one or two at a time, on sites next to other sporadic rural housing, again on the basis that they would not then be “isolated”. It might even prevent the policy from applying to a proposal for two or more dwellings on a single, undeveloped site in the countryside, because none of them would itself be “isolated” from another dwelling, and the development as a whole would therefore not be “isolated”. If this were so, only the development of a single dwelling, on its own, separate from any other dwelling already built or proposed nearby, would engage the policy. This would be hard to reconcile with the Government’s aim, as policy-maker, to “promote sustainable development in rural areas”.”
Whether a site is considered ‘isolated’ or not will be a matter of fact and planning judgment depending on the particular circumstances of the case, but in essence it relates to the degree to which a site is physically and spatially isolated from a settlement and not from existing development per se. Such matters are open to interpretation, and it is for the decision-maker to decide, whether that be the relevant local planning authority (in the case of planning applications) or the Planning Inspector (in the case of appeals).
Following the Braintree judgement in 2017, applicants and decision makers have had to consider whether a site is deemed to be isolated for the purposes of paragraph 84. Before this, it was almost always taken to be a site outside of a settlement boundary. However, it is important that the Braintree judgement is read in the context of later rulings, most particularly the City & County Bramshall Limited judgement made by Sir Keith Lindblom in 2021.
The eminent planning judge Sir Keith Lindblom has set the test for isolation. The test is not whether the proposed development is remote from anything, which may otherwise imply a site has to be in the middle of nowhere for Para 84 to apply, but whether a site is spatially and physically remote from a settlement. A group of houses or buildings does not automatically constitute a settlement.
It can be difficult to determine when a group of houses or buildings becomes a settlement. It can also be difficult to differentiate if and when a site forms part of a settlement, and when it is isolated from a settlement.
You can get situations where you are close to a settlement but are still isolated in the sense of the site having closer ties to the countryside than to the settlement. There are also cases where a site is relatively close to a settlement, but it is spatially and physically separated from it. A good question to ask oneself is, is this a location in which general market housing would normally be approved.
Sometimes, particularly if local planning authorities are seeking to resist a proposal for a new dwelling in the countryside, they may question whether a site is isolated enough, suggesting that in such circumstances, Para 84 would not apply. In such circumstances, it is important to consider whether there are other material considerations that may support a proposal for a new dwelling, which brings us to paragraph 139 of the NPPF.
Para 139
There are an increasing number of applications and appeals in which the “great weight” to be applied to “outstanding or innovative designs” as set out in paragraph 139 of the NPPF has contributed to the approval of planning permission for new dwellings that are outside of settlements, but not isolated. Paragraph 139 (b) of the NPPF states that:
““...significant weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability, or help raise the standard of design more generally in an area, so long as they fit in with the overall form and layout of their surroundings.”
One of the more recent Appeal Decisions in which significant weight was attached to paragraph 139 is the Morcott Site comprising a bespoke house of ‘outstanding’ quality of design in a Rutland conservation area. The house was designed by Kirkland Fraser Moor Architects.
In allowing the appeal and granting planning permission, the Appeal Inspector found that whilst the proposal site was not isolated for the purposes of paragraph 84 of the NPPF, the proposal attracted the “significant weight” as set out in paragraph 134 (now 139) of the NPPF due to the outstanding design quality of the scheme. Planning permission had originally been refused by Rutland County Council on 26th November 2021 under application reference 2020/0059/FUL. The Appeal Decision is dated 16th August 2023 in which the Inspector opined:
“
While the site is in the countryside in terms of the development plan, that is not the same test as that in paragraph 80 in the Framework which specifically relates to isolated dwellings [my emphasis]. The appeal site is located adjacent to Morcott, with the closest dwelling being at No 4 Pingle Lane. Physical separation from this settlement is thus limited and I do not consider it to be isolated in paragraph 80 terms.
However, this is all somewhat moot as the emphasis for achieving well-designed places is firmly embedded into the Framework. There is emphasis on the use of appropriate tools and processes for assessing and improving the design of development, including recommendations made by design review panels. In particular, paragraph 134 states that development that is not well designed should be refused. Significant weight should be given to development which reflects local design policies and guidance on design and/or outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability, or help raise the standard of design more generally in an area, so long as they fit in with the overall form and layout of their surroundings.”
Source: Magic Map
It is important to be aware that whilst paragraph 139 may provide an alternative policy approach to justifying a new dwelling in the countryside, it relates to all forms of development, whether in, adjacent or isolated from settlements. Unlike paragraph 84, it does not explicitly relate to new dwellings in the countryside. It is a policy that attributes significant weight to outstanding design.
The important takeaway from all of this is that, although a site may not be isolated for the purposes of paragraph 84 of the NPPF, there may still be sufficient merit for a proposal to be approved in a non-isolated location in the countryside.
NOTE
An updated version of the NPPF was published by the Government in December 2024 and the policy provisions referred to above and in the article below that were previously in paragraphs 80 and 134 of the NPPF 2021 have been moved to paragraphs 84 and 139 of the latest NPPF. The wording remains exactly the same.
ARTICLE
The Architects Journal published an interesting article on this matter on 1st December 2023 with contributions by Rob Hughes, Director of Hughes Planning. Click on the link below to read the article.
