Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 610
The point in plain English: Under the former 2012 NPPF wording, an “isolated” new home meant a home physically separate or remote from a settlement. It did not mean a home was isolated simply because the nearby settlement lacked shops, schools or other services.
What happened
The dispute concerned new housing in the countryside and the meaning of paragraph 55 of the 2012 National Planning Policy Framework. The council argued for an approach which focused on access to services and facilities.
What the Court of Appeal decided
McCombe and Lindblom LJJ rejected that interpretation. In the context of paragraph 55, “isolated” was concerned with physical separation from a settlement. A settlement could be a small hamlet or cluster of dwellings and did not need to possess particular services or facilities before a new home nearby ceased to be isolated.
The council’s appeal was dismissed.
Why Braintree still matters
The judgment is often cited when discussing what makes a home isolated in planning terms. But it interpreted the 2012 NPPF paragraph 55. National policy has since been rewritten, including again in 2026, so Braintree should not be treated as if the current policy uses exactly the same wording or test.
For today’s policy routes, see our current guide to isolated homes in the countryside.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.