Judges rule on meaning of ‘isolated’ homes and National Planning Policy Framework

The term ‘isolated’ has its ordinary meaning in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and needs no over-interpretation, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

Braintree District Council had appealed against the High Court’s rejection of its appeal against a planning inspector allowing planning permission for two homes in the village of Blackmore End.

Giving judgment in Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 610, Lindblom J said paragraph 55 of the NPPF stated that local planning authorities “should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances”.

Developer Granville had successfully appealed against Braintree’s refusal of planning permission for two detached single-storey homes on the sites of two agricultural buildings outside the settlement boundary defined in the emerging development plan.

The site lies between two listed farmhouses and the two pre-fabricated agricultural buildings that stood there were demolished in 2015.

Braintree argued that the inspector had misunderstood and misapplied paragraph 55 of the NPPF when he said that Blackmore End was “a recognisable village and is characterised by linear development extending along several roads”.

The inspector said: “There are a number of dwellings nearby and the development would not result in the new isolated homes in the countryside to which framework paragraph 55 refers.”

He also concluded no material harm would be caused to the setting of two nearby grade II* and grade II listed farmhouses.

Lord Justice Lindblom said: “Planning policies, whether in the development plan or in the NPPF, ought never to be over-interpreted. As this case shows, over-interpretation of a policy can distort its true meaning – which is misinterpretation.”

He said paragraph 55 was “expressed in general and unprescriptive terms”, did not dictate a particular outcome for an application, contained no presumption and simply advised local authorities on how to promote sustainable development in rural areas.

The paragraph’s advice was to avoid "new isolated homes in the countryside”, which Lindblom J said: “Simply differentiates between the development of housing within a settlement - or village - and new dwellings that would be ‘isolated’ in the sense of being separate or remote from a settlement”.

He explained: “Whether a proposed new dwelling is, or is not, ‘isolated’ in this sense will be a matter of fact and planning judgment for the decision-maker in the particular circumstances of the case in hand.

“In my opinion the language of paragraph 55 is entirely unambiguous, and there is therefore no need to resort to other statements of policy, either in the NPPF itself or elsewhere, that might shed light on its meaning.”

The judge concluded: “The inspector did not misinterpret or misapply the policy in paragraph 55 of the NPPF. His understanding of the policy was accurate, and his application of it impeccable.”