Development Outside Settlement Boundaries: New Opportunities Under the 2026 NPPF

The publication of the new National Planning Policy Framework in August 2026 has introduced a significantly different policy framework for assessing certain forms of development outside defined settlements.

Settlement boundaries remain important. The development plan remains the statutory starting point for determining planning applications and the new NPPF does not establish a general presumption in favour of unrestricted development in the countryside.

However, the introduction of Policy S5: Principle of development outside settlements provides a much clearer national policy basis for certain forms of development beyond settlement boundaries.

A New Policy Position for Development Outside Settlements

One of the most significant structural changes in the 2026 NPPF is the distinction now drawn between proposals within settlements and those outside them.

Policy S3 directs decision-makers to apply Policy S4 to proposals within settlements and Policy S5 to proposals outside settlements.

Policy S5 then identifies the categories of development that may be supported outside of settlements. These include, amongst other forms of development:

• development for rural businesses and services;
• reuse, extension, alteration or replacement of certain existing buildings;
• redevelopment of previously developed land;
• limited infilling within groups of houses;
• garden and backland plots where they fall within a supported form of development (see our guide to building a new home in a garden);
• certain rural exception and community-led development;
• residential and mixed-use development close to well-connected stations;
• development of allocated land outside settlements; and
• development which would address an evidenced unmet need.

This does not mean that every site outside of settlements are now suitable for development. Matters including landscape character, access, flooding, ecology, heritage, infrastructure and design remain capable of determining whether a scheme is acceptable.

Furthermore, part 4 of the Policy states that development proposals which do not fall within one of the categories set out in this policy should only be approved in exceptional circumstances, where the benefits of the proposal would substantially outweigh the adverse effects, including to the character of the countryside and in relation to promoting sustainable patterns of movement.

Therefore, if your site or circumstances meet one of the exceptions listed in Policy S5 of the NPPF, your job of securing planning permission may have got easier. If it does not meet one of the exceptions, you will need to demonstrate 'exceptional circumstances', a higher bar than previously the case for rural development.

1 Limited Infilling Within Groups of Houses

For smaller residential sites, one of the most notable changes is Policy S5(1)(e), which expressly identifies "limited infilling within groups of houses" as a form of development that can be supported outside settlements.

This could be particularly significant in rural areas where development does not fit neatly within defined village boundaries.

Potential opportunities may include:

• a vacant plot between existing dwellings;
• a modest gap within an established ribbon of housing;
• land contained within a small cluster of existing properties;
• a plot within a hamlet which is not itself defined as a settlement; or
• another modest site where development would consolidate an existing group of houses rather than extend built development into genuinely open countryside.

The terminology is important. The NPPF glossary expressly distinguishes settlements from hamlets and scattered groups of houses outside predominantly built-up areas. Policy S5 nevertheless separately provides for limited infilling within groups of houses.

This may therefore create opportunities where an older Local Plan takes a narrower approach to rural infill or confines new housing to formally defined settlement boundaries.

Whether a particular site represents genuine infilling will remain a matter of planning judgement. The relationship between the site and surrounding houses, the size of the gap, the prevailing pattern of development and the effect on countryside character will all be relevant. Moreover, infilling in areas of high historic significance may remain challenging.

2 Redevelopment of Previously Developed Land

Policy S5(1)(d) also provides support for the redevelopment of previously developed land outside settlements, including a material change of use to residential development or mixed-use development incorporating residential uses.

This could potentially benefit sites including:

• former commercial premises;
• redundant employment sites;
• workshops and storage yards;
• former institutional premises;
• certain previously developed rural sites; and
• other brownfield land where its redevelopment could represent a more effective use of an established site.

Establishing whether land falls within the NPPF definition of previously developed land remains essential.

However, where the definition is met, the new policy provides an important national planning basis for considering redevelopment even where the site lies outside a settlement boundary.

3 Reuse and Replacement of Existing Buildings

The NPPF also supports the reuse, extension, alteration or replacement of certain existing buildings outside settlements.

Under Policy S5(1)(c), the existing building must be lawful in planning terms and of permanent and substantial construction. Extensions and alterations must not result in a disproportionate increase in size compared with the existing building.

In the case of a replacement building, it should be for the same use and should not be disproportionately larger than the building being replaced.

An important detail within the policy is that the existing building is to be assessed as the property existed on the date the new Framework was published. This different from the test often applied for properties in the Green Belt where the original dwelling is used as the baseline, dating as far back as 1948 or when the property was first built if after that date.

For sites containing existing rural buildings, the planning history, lawful use, construction and physical condition of the building should therefore be established at an early stage.

Depending on the circumstances, other planning routes may also be relevant. The appropriate strategy may involve a full planning application, permitted development rights or another form of planning approval.

4 Development to Address an Evidenced Unmet Need

Potentially one of the most commercially significant provisions is Policy S5(1)(j).

This supports development which would address an evidenced unmet need, subject to the requirements of the policy.

For housing proposals, the NPPF expressly identifies circumstances where:

• the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites; or
• the authority scores below 75% in the most recent Housing Delivery Test.

Where an evidenced unmet need exists, the development should be physically well-related to an existing settlement, unless the nature of the development makes that inappropriate, and should be of a scale capable of being accommodated having regard to existing or proposed infrastructure.

This provision could be particularly important for edge-of-settlement sites.

For example, land may immediately adjoin the existing built-up area of a village but fall outside a settlement boundary drawn through an older Local Plan. Previously, substantial weight may have been placed on the site's technical classification as countryside.

Where an evidenced unmet housing need exists, Policy S5 now provides a specific national policy route through which appropriately located development can be considered.

5 Residential Development Around Well-Connected Stations

Policy S5 also provides a specific route for residential and mixed-use development outside settlements where land is within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station.

The NPPF defines reasonable walking distance for this purpose as around 800 metres, or around a ten-minute walk where factors such as topography, route quality or physical barriers mean that a simple 800 metre measurement would not appropriately reflect walking accessibility.

Development must also:

• be physically well-related to the station or the settlement within which the station is located;
• be of a scale capable of being accommodated by existing or proposed infrastructure; and
• avoid prejudicing proposals for long-term comprehensive development in the same location.

This could create particular opportunities around towns and villages where a station sits close to the existing settlement edge and historical settlement boundaries have constrained outward growth. This opportunity also applies within the Green Belt.

In order to correctly understand the application of planning policy, it is important to review the glossary to the NPPF. As previously stated, reasonable walking distance is defined as "around 800m", however the glossary confirms that where part of the site is within 800m and part of the site is outside of 800m different policy tests apply. In these circumstances, if an entrance to a site is within 800m of a well-connected train station, but the rest of the site is not, a different approach may be required.

6 Rural Businesses and Tourism

The opportunities created by Policy S5 are not confined to residential development.

Policy S5(1)(b) supports development for rural businesses and services, including tourism, where the need for a location outside settlements can be demonstrated.

Depending on the individual circumstances, this may be relevant to:

• rural business expansion;
• agricultural diversification;
• visitor accommodation and tourism development;
• recreation and leisure uses;
• land-based businesses; and
• other commercial development with a genuine operational requirement for a rural location.

A countryside location should therefore not automatically be treated as a reason for refusal. A robust planning case will, however, normally need to establish the locational requirement and demonstrate that the proposal is acceptable against the other relevant national decision-making policies.

What Does the New NPPF Mean for Older Local Plan Policies?

This is likely to be one of the most important practical issues arising from the new Framework.

The starting point remains section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004: planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Settlement boundaries and countryside policies within adopted Local Plans therefore remain relevant.

However, Annex A of the August 2026 NPPF states that development plan policies, or parts of policies, which are materially inconsistent with the national decision-making policies in the Framework should be given very limited weight, subject to the exception identified in Annex A for policies examined and adopted or made against the new Framework.

Importantly, the NPPF also makes clear that other development plan policies should not be given reduced weight simply because they pre-date the new Framework.

The correct approach is therefore not to assume that every older settlement boundary or countryside policy is now out of date.

Instead, the wording and effect of the relevant local policy should be compared carefully with the new national decision-making policies.

What About Sites in the Green Belt?

Policy S5 does not itself apply to development proposals within the Green Belt or on land designated as Local Green Space.

Those proposals must instead be assessed against the relevant Green Belt or Local Green Space policies within the Framework.

The new NPPF contains separate provisions relating to matters including previously developed land, infilling, development around well-connected stations and grey belt land.

Green Belt sites may therefore still have development potential, but they require a separate policy assessment rather than reliance on Policy S5.

What About Isolated Homes in the Countryside?

The new policy should not be interpreted as providing general support for isolated houses in the countryside. However, opportunities still apply for carefully thought through developments.

Policy S5 specifically states that proposals comprising isolated homes — those lying outside settlements or groups of houses — should not be approved other than in accordance with Policy HO11.

This distinction reinforces why the relationship between a development site and the existing pattern of built development is likely to remain important.

A modest site contained within an established group of houses presents a very different planning proposition from an isolated plot in otherwise open countryside.

Could Previously Refused Sites Now Be Worth Reconsidering?

Potentially, yes.

A previous refusal remains a material consideration and the publication of a new NPPF does not automatically overcome other planning objections.

However, where the principal reason a site was previously discounted or refused related to its location outside a settlement boundary, the planning position may now warrant reassessment.

This is particularly relevant where a site could fall within:

• limited infilling within a group of houses;
• redevelopment of previously developed land;
• reuse or replacement of an existing building;
• development responding to an evidenced unmet need; or
• development close to a well-connected station.

Where a previous application has already been refused, the planning history should be reviewed alongside the new policy position before deciding whether to pursue a revised planning application or, where appropriate, a planning appeal.

Which Sites Should Landowners Be Looking At?

The new policy framework means that land which may previously have been discounted deserves a more careful assessment.

In particular, there may be merit in reviewing sites which:

None of these characteristics guarantees planning permission.

Site-specific constraints remain critical. Landscape sensitivity, flood risk, highway safety, ecology, heritage, biodiversity, infrastructure and agricultural land quality may all materially influence the prospects of development.

The opportunity created by the new NPPF is therefore not simply an increase in countryside development. It is the creation of clearer national policy routes through which appropriately located development outside settlements can be considered.

Larger Edge-of-Settlement and Strategic Sites

For larger sites, the new policy framework may also influence decisions about whether land should be promoted through the Local Plan process or advanced through a planning application.

A site adjoining an existing settlement may have strategic potential even where immediate planning permission is not the most appropriate route.

Factors including housing need, infrastructure capacity, settlement hierarchy, landscape sensitivity and the emerging Local Plan position should all inform the strategy.

Cedar Planning's Strategic Land Promotion service assists landowners and developers with the assessment and promotion of land through the plan-making process.

A Significant Change, but Site Selection Remains Critical

The August 2026 NPPF represents a significant change in the way proposals outside settlements are considered.

Settlement boundaries have not disappeared and there is no general presumption that undeveloped countryside should now be released for development.

What has changed is that national policy now identifies a series of defined circumstances in which development outside settlements should be supported.

These include:

• limited infilling within groups of houses;
• redevelopment of previously developed land;
• reuse and replacement of certain existing buildings;
• development responding to an evidenced unmet need;
• development around well-connected stations; and
• appropriate rural business and tourism development.

For landowners and developers, the practical consequence is clear: sites previously discounted solely because they fall outside a settlement boundary should not automatically be written off.

The strongest opportunities will be those where the site fits clearly within one of the Policy S5 routes and the wider planning constraints can be satisfactorily addressed.

Obtaining an early planning feasibility assessment can therefore help establish whether a site warrants further investment before commissioning architects, surveys and other technical work.