A rural housing appeal involving two proposed self-build homes at Over Wallop in Hampshire has been dismissed, even though Test Valley Borough Council could demonstrate only 2.54 years of deliverable housing land. The Inspector applied the new August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and found that the scheme failed the policy tests for development outside settlements.
Inspector R Cahalane issued the decision on 30 October 2026 in appeal 6011505, following a site visit on 15 September. The proposal concerned two detached two-storey houses, with access, parking and landscaping on land south of Wallop Farm. It had been refused under application 25/03030/FULLN and was promoted as self-build and custom housebuilding.
This rural housing appeal is noteworthy because the Inspector gave very limited weight to two restrictive local settlement policies, but still rejected the scheme on its actual scale, countryside context, sustainable transport credentials and a deficient self-build legal agreement. It is a useful early illustration of how the revised NPPF works in practice.
Why the rural housing appeal failed under policy S5
The location lay outside a settlement for the purposes of national policy, although houses stood on either side of the site and there were further groups of houses nearby. The Inspector applied NPPF policy S5, rather than policy S4, because the proposal did not sit within the nationally defined settlement area. This distinction is now fundamental to housing decisions following the replacement of the old paragraph 11 presumption in August 2026.
The appellants relied on the route for limited infilling within groups of houses under S5(1)(e). They argued that the plot sat between existing residential properties, preventing unrestricted sprawl into open countryside. But the proposed houses were substantially taller and bulkier than their immediate neighbours, and the Inspector considered the two plots in their local setting rather than treating any gap between houses as automatically suitable infill.
On the meaning of limited infilling, the Inspector said the development cannot be reasonably described as limited in its context
. I would read that as an assessment of this particular design and street scene, not a numerical rule that two houses can never be limited infilling. The rural housing appeal therefore shows the importance of fitting the amount and form of development to its immediate surroundings.
Outdated local settlement policies carried little weight
Test Valley’s revised local plan policies COM2, E1 and E2, together with relevant Over Wallop neighbourhood plan policies, featured in the appeal. The Inspector found that COM2 and neighbourhood policy EL P7 applied a more restrictive approach to unallocated development outside settlements than the 2026 Framework. Under paragraph 2 of NPPF Annex A, materially inconsistent development plan policies are to receive very limited weight, subject to the stated exception for policies made or examined under the new Framework.
That did not remove the statutory requirement to start with the development plan, nor did it confer planning permission. The Inspector found further conflicts with design and countryside-character policies, and assessed the scheme directly under the new national decision-making policies. Our guide to building outside a settlement boundary explains the practical routes in S5 without assuming that a local plan boundary alone decides every proposal.
This rural housing appeal is a reminder that obtaining little weight for one objection is only part of a successful case. Even where an older policy is weakened, design, transport, heritage and other national policy tests remain capable of defeating an application. It would have been unsafe to assume that the housing land shortage automatically displaced all of those considerations.
The Inspector rejected the idea these were isolated homes
An interesting distinction emerges from the decision. Although the development failed as limited infill, the Inspector did not consider the proposed homes to be isolated dwellings under S5(3). There were groups of houses sufficiently close to the site, even with undeveloped land separating some properties. That made the isolated-homes restriction in policy HO11 inapplicable, but it did not place the proposal within a settlement or establish another S5 approval route.
Policy S5(4) therefore required exceptional circumstances for a proposal outside the listed categories, with benefits substantially outweighing adverse effects. Here, the Inspector found that the houses would introduce an unduly prominent suburban form into the rural landscape. He also considered that day-to-day occupants would depend heavily on cars to reach typical services, contrary to relevant principles in national design policy DP3.
The self-build agreement did not secure what was claimed
The applicants offered a unilateral undertaking intended to secure both houses as self-build and custom housebuilding. The evidence suggested one home was intended for the appellants and another for a named individual. However, the undertaking described that individual as a developer rather than a first occupier and did not adequately secure occupation by the people put forward. The Inspector also questioned who had actually influenced the design of two essentially identical proposed houses.
The Government’s self-build guidance explains that the initial owner should have primary input into the home’s final design and layout; buying an off-plan home without that input is not enough. Although self-build delivery can carry material weight, the rural housing appeal lacked sufficient evidence and an effective legal mechanism to demonstrate that the proposal met the statutory self-build definition.
The Inspector also separated the planning concept of self-build from the Community Infrastructure Levy exemption. The appeal material contained a form indicating an intention to seek self-build CIL relief, but completing those forms would not itself bind the development for the purposes of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015. A tax-relief route is not a substitute for proof of the planning case being advanced.
Housing delivery was poor, but the planning balance still failed
The Council reported only 2.54 years of deliverable housing sites against the usual five-year requirement. Its Housing Delivery Test result was 64 per cent. The Inspector accepted that these figures demonstrated an evidenced need for additional homes and gave substantial weight under policy HO7 to the two houses’ contribution to supply. This was not a case in which the shortfall was ignored or dismissed as irrelevant.
Nevertheless, the rural housing appeal was decided against a broader planning balance. The Inspector found the proposal in conflict with DP3 principles on contextual design and prioritising walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport. Solar panels, air-source heat pumps, electric vehicle charging, cycle storage, wildlife enhancements and energy-efficient design brought benefits, but their weight was reduced because the overall built form was not suitably integrated into the surroundings.
There was also no accepted secure commitment to qualifying self-build accommodation. Those matters meant that the claimed benefits did not substantially outweigh harm to countryside character and sustainable patterns of movement under S5(4). The Inspector dismissed the appeal notwithstanding the significant housing delivery shortfall, showing that S5 does not operate as a simple green light wherever the five-year supply falls below its target.
What this decision means for rural plots
For a proposed development outside an existing settlement, the first question under the 2026 NPPF is which S5 category genuinely applies. If the case relies on limited infilling, the actual scale and relationship with neighbouring buildings need careful assessment. If it relies on self-build provision, evidence of purchasers’ design input and appropriately drafted obligations must match what the legislation requires. Our broader NPPF 2026 guide explains how these policies fit together.
A rural housing appeal should not be reduced to a single housing land supply percentage. In this case even 2.54 years of supply, a Housing Delivery Test result of 64 per cent and the downgrading of restrictive settlement policies did not cure the problems with size, location, transport and self-build evidence. A different scheme on the same land might be assessed differently, but that cannot be assumed from this dismissed appeal.
Decision and official policy sources
The official Planning Inspectorate appeal record is reference 6011505, decided on 30 October 2026. The Inspector’s wording quoted here is reproduced from the decision under the Open Government Licence v3.0. The Government’s S3 to S5 policy text and Annex A provide the national framework. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments