The new route to permission for land beside a town or village

On 17 August 2026 the government published a new National Planning Policy Framework, and the rule most landowners knew as the tilted balance went with the old one. Its successor sits in a policy called S5, which lists the kinds of development that should be approved outside settlements. For a landowner with fields on the edge of a town or village, one item on that list matters more than the rest.

Policy S5(1)(j) supports development that would address “an evidenced unmet need”. The framework says that includes housing where the council “cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites or scores below 75% in the most recent Housing Delivery Test”. The homes must also be “physically well-related to an existing settlement” and “of a scale which can be accommodated taking into account the existing or proposed availability of infrastructure”.

Where a scheme fits, it should be approved unless the benefits “would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects”. On 6 October the housing and planning minister, Matthew Pennycook, wrote to the chief executive of the Planning Inspectorate to say how he reads that. For development supported in principle, “a universal tilt in favour of granting permission is engaged”. He asked for it to be shared with inspectors conducting planning appeals and assessing applications.

This piece explains which councils the route reaches, and what the first appeal decisions say about which fields qualify.

Which councils it reaches

The clearest trigger is the Housing Delivery Test, which compares the homes a council built over three years with the homes it was required to build. The government published the 2025 results on 17 August. 93 planning authorities in England scored below 75%. Each of them has an evidenced unmet need for housing on the framework’s own terms. In Gloucestershire that includes Cotswold at 68%, Gloucester at 63% and Cheltenham at 56%.

The second trigger is the five-year supply. There is no national register of it. Each council publishes its own position, and the figure is often argued over at appeal. At Drayton in Oxfordshire in September, the council put its supply at 5.34 years and the inspector found “around 4.9 years”. Up to 31 homes were allowed (appeal 6005108).

One of the first decisions also suggests the route may be wider than either test. The policy’s wording is “including, but not limited to”. At Kingston Bagpuize, in the same district, the inspector found the council could show a five-year supply and had passed the delivery test at 192%. The inspector still found an unmet need, from the thin margin in its supply combined with the number of households waiting for affordable housing, and allowed up to 249 homes (appeal 6005809).

That is one decision, and any High Court challenge to it must be made within six weeks, by 26 October. But it shows the route is not only for councils that are behind on their numbers.

What decides whether a field qualifies

Under the old rule, the first question was whether the council’s policies were out of date. Location mattered to the weighing, but it was not the way in. Under S5(1)(j) it is. A site has to be physically well related to an existing settlement before the tilt applies at all.

The framework does not define the phrase, so inspectors are defining it appeal by appeal. Four of the first decisions show the shape of it.

• Next to the edge, with consented land alongside. At Needingworth in Cambridgeshire, the site sat by the village edge, and 30 homes already had permission on the land to the north. The inspector found the relationship “would be further enhanced” by that permission and allowed the scheme (appeal 6009048).
• Touching the village is not enough. At Tattenhall in Cheshire, the site adjoined the settlement “along one side only” and would have been “an outwards extension and not rounding off”. It was not well related, it also harmed the setting of the village’s conservation area, and the appeal was dismissed (appeal 6008560).
• Close, but harmful to the setting. At Aston Clinton in Buckinghamshire, the site was “very close to the settlement” and reached from a village road. The inspector found it was not well related because of moderate harm to the character of the area and limited harm to the setting of the village. Up to 66 homes were allowed anyway under the framework’s stricter test for exceptional circumstances (appeal 6008253).
• Reliant on the car. At Findon, in the South Downs National Park, future residents would “likely be highly reliant on private cars for most journeys”. The site was not well related and the appeal failed (appeal 6006900).

The decisions that went against a site show what the strongest sites avoid: touching the village on one side only, harming its setting, or leaving residents reliant on a car. At Needingworth the site also sat close to land with permission, and the framework’s own definition of a settlement includes that land before anything is built on it.

These are four of eight decisions we read, issued between 10 September and 9 October and found through reported cases rather than drawn at random. Three of the eight were dismissed. Of the 2,144 section 78 planning appeals decided in July to September 2026, the Planning Inspectorate allowed 31%.

Scale matters too. The homes must suit the roads, schools, surgeries and water supply the settlement has or will have. A scheme sized to what a village can absorb gets a different answer from one sized to the land available.

And so does density. At Brigsley in Lincolnshire, an inspector found 9 homes well related to the settlement and still dismissed them. On 1.3 hectares they came to 6.8 homes per hectare, gross, and the inspector’s reasons were “particularly but not limited to” the policy on making effective use of land (appeal 6009363). Density and layout are worth settling early, before the detailed stage.

Where it stops

The Green Belt. S5 does not apply there. Land in the Green Belt is decided under the Green Belt policies instead, where grey belt is the relevant route. We explained it in grey belt explained for landowners.

Protected landscapes. Major development inside a National Landscape or a National Park “should be refused other than in exceptional circumstances” (policy N4). Whether a scheme counts as major there is a judgement about its effect on the landscape, not a set number of homes.

Other refusal policies. The tilt gives way where another national policy says a proposal should be refused. Flood risk, irreplaceable habitats and substantial harm to a designated heritage asset all work this way.

Time. The framework gives councils that adopt a new plan some protection, for five years. If a council can show a five-year supply and scores more than 75% on the delivery test, the gap between its plan’s housing requirement and the government’s standard method figure does not count as unmet need in that time (Annex A, paragraph 3). Many councils are trying to submit plans before the current system closes to them, on 31 March 2027 for plans whose final consultation ends this year. Once a plan is adopted, a route that is open today can close.

What the minister’s letter adds

A letter from a minister is not law. Planning decisions are still made in line with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, and the framework says it does not displace that duty.

What the letter does is tell inspectors how the government reads its own words. It also repeats that the framework gives “substantial weight” to homes that meet a community’s evidenced needs.

The letter has limits. In most of the eight decisions we read, the main question was whether a site qualified, not the weighing that follows. The letter helps a site that is through the gate. It does not get a site through it.

What this means for a landowner

For land on the edge of a town or village, in an area with an unmet need for housing, national policy now names the route and the government has said which way it leans. Much of what decided these cases can be checked before anyone pays for drawings.

• Your council’s position. Its 2025 Housing Delivery Test score, and its latest five-year supply statement or appeal findings.
• How the land sits. Against the edge of the settlement as it is today, and as nearby allocations and permissions will make it.
• What is designated. Green Belt, a National Landscape or National Park, flood zones and heritage on or beside the site.
• What the place can take. The scale of scheme the roads, schools and services can support, and a layout that uses the land well.

Each scheme allowed in these decisions won permission at appeal, after the council had refused it or not decided in time. Appeals take months and cost money, which is why these checks come first.

Our Land Potential Check gives a free first read of the constraints on a piece of land, drawn from national planning data. If the route might apply to yours, the next step is a careful read of the site itself, and that is a conversation we are glad to have.