The Aston Clinton appeal has produced one of the clearest early tests yet of the new August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework, with up to 66 homes allowed even though the site failed the new test of being physically well related to an existing settlement.
Inspector Zoe Raygen accepted that the land east of College Road South was very close to Aston Clinton, could be reached from an existing road within the village and was well placed for facilities and services. Even so, she found the scheme would cause limited harm to the village’s setting and context, as well as wider landscape harm.
That was enough for the proposal to fall outside the route in Policy S5(1)(j). But it did not end the appeal. Buckinghamshire Council had a substantial five-year housing land supply shortfall and Raygen found the scheme’s housing, affordable housing and other benefits were strong enough to satisfy the exceptional-circumstances route in S5(4).
The decision, issued on 24th September 2026, is therefore important for what it says about how the new Framework may work in practice: proximity and good access do not automatically make a site physically well related, and failure under S5(1)(j) does not necessarily mean refusal.
Close to Aston Clinton, but still not physically well related
Rectory Homes appealed after Buckinghamshire Council refused outline permission for up to 66 dwellings on land east of College Road South. All matters were reserved except access.
The site lies outside Aston Clinton’s settlement boundary. Raygen found the development would extend built form into the countryside and cause a moderate adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. The harm to the setting and context of the village was more limited, but it became crucial when the new Framework was applied.
Policy S5 governs the principle of development outside settlements. Both main parties agreed that S5(1)(j) was relevant because the proposal would address an evidenced unmet housing need. That route also requires development to be physically well related to an existing settlement and of a scale that can be accommodated by available or proposed infrastructure.
Infrastructure was not the stumbling block. The Inspector accepted the Section 106 package and direct provision of services would avoid an unacceptable impact. The difficult question was what “physically well related” actually meant.
Raygen recorded that the site was very close to Aston Clinton, accessed from an existing road within the settlement and well located for facilities and services. Yet the landscape and settlement-setting harm pulled the other way. Her conclusion was blunt:
“it is not physically well related to the settlement”
That meant the scheme did not comply with S5(1)(j), despite its physical proximity and accessibility.
S5(4) provided the route to approval
The appeal then moved to a different part of the same policy. S5(4) says proposals that do not fall within one of the listed categories should only be approved in exceptional circumstances where their benefits substantially outweigh the adverse effects, including countryside character and sustainable movement.
That test was satisfied. The Inspector gave substantial weight to delivery of 66 homes in an authority with a substantial housing supply shortfall, and substantial weight to the policy-compliant affordable housing secured through the legal agreement.
Economic benefits from construction and future household spending attracted moderate weight. Energy efficiency, open space, play space and biodiversity net gain also received moderate weight, while transport improvements were given limited weight.
Against that package, Raygen concluded that the:
“substantial benefits of the proposal would substantially outweigh”
the adverse effects she had identified. She added that the outcome would have been the same even if the limited harm to the spatial strategy had been included in that balance.
A substantial housing shortfall changed the weight
The decision does not settle on a single five-year supply figure because the parties disagreed over the precise number. It did not need to. At paragraph 38 the Inspector recorded that, whichever figure was preferred, the shortfall was substantial, a point Buckinghamshire itself accepted.
There was another timing issue. From 15th September 2026 the adopted plan was more than five years old, so the standard method would be used to calculate housing need. The Council acknowledged that this would reduce its housing land supply position further.
Raygen therefore gave only limited weight to conflict with the spatial strategy policies, while continuing to give full weight to the identified landscape harm. Our guides explain the wider rules on five-year housing land supply and development outside settlement boundaries under the 2026 NPPF.
The emerging local plan mattered, but did not decide the appeal
The appeal site also sits within a much larger proposed allocation in Buckinghamshire’s emerging Local Plan. Policy AST01 identifies about 52 hectares, including the appeal land, for a mixed-use development of around 1,660 homes, employment, a local centre, two primary schools and healthcare facilities.
Raygen was careful not to treat that as a settled allocation. The Regulation 19 consultation had only recently closed and the emerging plan attracted limited weight. However, it was still a material consideration because it showed the Council’s strategic intention for substantial development in this broad location.
The Council argued that allowing 66 homes now could interfere with the wider allocation and its comprehensive planning. The Inspector found there was no detailed masterplan, infrastructure strategy, viability evidence or other persuasive material showing that this part of the land was needed for a particular use, access, infrastructure or higher-density development. The appeal scheme occupied only a small part of the wider proposed allocation and would not, on the evidence before her, prejudice its future planning.
Why the Aston Clinton appeal matters after Buntingford
The decision is especially interesting alongside the Buntingford appeal 6008238, also decided on 24th September 2026.
At Buntingford, a 600-home site on the opposite side of the A10 was found to be physically well related to the town after the Inspector examined bridges, crossings, topography and wider urban influences. At Aston Clinton, a site much closer to the village, with an existing road connection and good access to services, failed the test because of the way the development would affect the countryside and the village’s setting.
The contrast suggests that “physically well related” is not simply a measurement exercise and should not be reduced to whether land touches a settlement boundary or sits within a convenient walking distance. Landscape, settlement form, context and the nature of the connection can all matter.
The decision has already drawn attention from practitioners. Landmark Chambers, whose Matthew Fraser appeared for Rectory Homes at the hearing, highlighted it as an early decision on the new NPPF policies S5 and HO13.
Nor should the Aston Clinton appeal be treated as creating a binding precedent. It is an individual appeal decision on its own evidence. But as an early application of the August 2026 NPPF, it gives practitioners a useful indication of how S5(1)(j) and S5(4) can operate sequentially.
The appeal was allowed on 24th September 2026, subject to conditions and a completed Section 106 agreement. The agreement secures 25% affordable housing alongside contributions and obligations relating to education, healthcare, transport, open space and Chiltern Beechwoods mitigation.
Appeal Ref: 6008253. Application Ref: 25/02250/AOP. Inspector: Zoe Raygen. Read the appeal decision.
0 Comments