What we’re shipping

Coming soon

This week at appeal

The weekly note on what Inspectors decided, as posted on LinkedIn under #ThisWeekAtAppeal. Every case number links to the free appeal search, with the Inspector’s letter behind it.

1. Week to 27 October 2026

   277 decisions · 33.2% allowed · 44% cite the new Framework

   📊 277 appeal decisions were issued in the seven days to 27 October. 92 were allowed, 33.2 percent, against 28.1 percent for 2026 so far.

   🏘️ Three housing schemes outside settlements turned on Policy S5 of the new Framework, and the gate is "physically well-related to an existing settlement".

   At Horton Heath, 150 homes with 40 percent affordable were dismissed after an inquiry (Eastleigh, 6005642). The supply shortfall and the affordable housing each carried substantial weight, but the field is separated from the village by ancient woodland, the routes were poor and the morning bus had a 1 hour 45 minute gap. Not well-related, so no exception, and the benefits did not substantially outweigh the harm.

   At Great Abington, 40 homes were allowed (South Cambridgeshire, 6005101). The site wraps round existing housing, and the agreed unmet need for affordable and self-build homes met the exception even on the Council's claimed 7.83 year supply.

   At Hawthorn, 81 homes met the exception and were still dismissed (Durham, 6007418). Moderate harm to the setting of the conservation area and the landscape, and no genuine choice of transport, substantially outweighed the benefits.

   🌳 Two permission in principle appeals at Epping were dismissed before location was considered (Epping Forest, 6011961 and 6011962). PiP cannot be granted for habitats development. The undertakings covered air pollution but not the recreation contribution for the SAC, so mitigation was not secured.

   ☀️ A 27 MW solar farm between Widnes and Warrington was allowed in the Green Belt (Warrington, 6008814). It was not grey belt: it would read as a finger of development and fill half the gap between the towns. Very special circumstances: the energy benefits, a grid connection before 2035 and a 169 percent habitat gain, with grazing kept under the panels.

   📡 A 20 m mast beside Shrewsbury Park was refused prior approval (Greenwich, 6012590). The appellant had not considered alternatives because a base station already stood nearby, and with no defined search area the Framework's test was not met.

   🍺 Last week a pub change was allowed because the marketing test was never triggered. This week one was allowed because the test was passed (Islington, 6006605): vacant since 2022, marketed since 2023, three offers above asking and none from a pub operator.

   📐 A house already split in two in Paignton was dismissed (Torbay, 6012381). 48 to 50 square metres against the 70 the space standard requires, and a 33 square metre garden against 55. Under S4(2) that substantially outweighed a home in a district without a five year supply.

   Eastleigh 6005642South Cambridgeshire 6005101Durham 6007418Epping Forest 60119616011962Warrington 6008814Greenwich 6012590Islington 6006605Torbay 6012381

   #ThisWeekAtAppeal

2. Week to 20 October 2026

   244 decisions · 30.3% allowed · 41% cite the new Framework

   📊 244 appeal decisions were issued in the seven days to 20 October. Every letter is in the Town Planner Pro record, and every one has been analysed. 74 were allowed, 30.3 percent, against 28.0 percent for 2026 so far, so nothing to read into the week. The new Framework's policies were cited in 41 percent.

   🌳 Three grey belt housing schemes turned on the same Golden Rule: publicly accessible green space.

   At Culverstone Green, 100 homes were allowed (Gravesham, 6007106). A parameter plan fixed where about 2ha of open space would go and the s106 secured it.

   At Ash, 200 homes were allowed after an inquiry (Guildford, 6008529), with the green space tied to a parameter plan, conditions and the obligation.

   At Prestwood, 18 homes with 50 percent affordable were dismissed (Buckinghamshire, 6007290). Nothing showed the homes and public green space would fit on the site, the off-site land and CIL were unsecured, and the Inspector did not accept that GB8 saying "should" rather than "must" removed the need for justification. Without the grey belt exception, even a 0.86 year supply did not clearly outweigh the harm.

   💷 38 flats on Rye Lane were allowed (Southwark, 6010489). Both viability consultants agreed the scheme could support no affordable housing. A £1m contribution offered earlier had no workings behind it, so it failed the tests. Poor daylight and outlook in some flats carried considerable weight but did not substantially outweigh the benefits under S4. The undersized wheelchair flats were met by a payment in lieu.

   ☀️ A solar farm at Cawston, on land almost entirely best and most versatile, was allowed (Broadland, 6007160). About 4ha of the 93ha site would be disturbed, grazing would continue under the panels, and the predictive ALC map puts 88.5 percent of the district in BMV. Following Bramley, no sequential test was required, and the Inspector found no loss of BMV land.

   🍺 A pub in West Hendon, already trading as a restaurant, was allowed to change use (Barnet, 6013178). With no evidence of heritage, cultural, economic or social value, the London Plan's marketing test was not triggered, and it was not a key community facility under the Framework's HC6.

   🏺 A self-build home at Holbeach St Johns was dismissed (South Holland, 6005428), despite substantial weight for the self-build shortfall. Romano-British cropmarks run into the site, and a clean geophysical survey could not rule out remains of schedulable quality. Intrusive evaluation was needed before permission, not by condition, and the site also failed on access to services.

   Gravesham 6007106Guildford 6008529Buckinghamshire 6007290Southwark 6010489Broadland 6007160Barnet 6013178South Holland 6005428

   #ThisWeekAtAppeal

3. Week to 13 October 2026

   237 decisions · 37.1% allowed · 43% cite the new Framework

   📊 237 appeal decisions were issued in the seven days to 13 October. Every letter is in the Town Planner Pro record. 88 were allowed, 37.1 percent, against 27.9 percent for 2026 so far. That is the top of the recent range, not a turn: the newest weeks read high until the late-publishing enforcement cases, mostly dismissed, arrive. The new Framework was cited in 43 percent.

   🏘️ 635 homes north-west of Stonehouse were allowed after an inquiry (Stroud, 6009483). Supply was 3.24 years on the council's figure, 2.77 on the appellant's, and neither needed deciding. The settlement limits were out of date, S5(1)(j) was engaged, and the harm to the setting of the Cotswolds National Landscape carried moderate weight.

   ☀️ The same day a 20MW solar farm south of Ramsden was allowed after an inquiry (West Oxfordshire, 6004776). Minor harm to the setting of the same National Landscape carried significant weight and the scheme conflicted with the plan, but the benefits justified it.

   💷 At Cressing the developer went into administration part way through 77 homes, and the s73a appeal sought to cut affordable housing from 40 to 20 percent (Braintree, 6008421). The viability used the failed developer's own costs rather than market inputs, valued the land on an industrial use no longer there, and leaned on London guidance. The appeal was allowed with the full 40 percent: 16 homes delivered plus about £369,000 in lieu.

   🔋 80MW of battery storage near Axminster was dismissed after an inquiry (East Devon, 6003095). The site sits on an aquifer serving 20 private water supplies, with no mains. A fire during a heavy storm was unlikely, but the Inspector was not satisfied contaminated firewater would be contained, however low the probability.

   🐎 Three homes replacing stables at Guiseley were allowed in principle in the Green Belt (Leeds, 6011132). The council judged openness from an illustrative layout, but permission in principle does not fix layout, so the question was whether three homes could fit on previously developed land without substantial harm. They could.

   🌊 Three Traveller pitches near Ilton were dismissed (Somerset, 6007760). The sequential test was passed, but with about a metre of water at the access at the peak of a flood, the site would not be safe for its lifetime.

   Stroud 6009483West Oxfordshire 6004776Braintree 6008421East Devon 6003095Leeds 6011132Somerset 6007760

   #ThisWeekAtAppeal

4. Week to 6 October 2026

   270 decisions · 27.8% allowed · 50% cite the new Framework

   📊 270 appeal decisions were issued in the seven days to 6 October. 75 were allowed, 27.8 percent, which is exactly the rate for 2026 so far. The weekly figure has ranged from 21 to 38 percent over the last ten weeks, so the number says little. The reasoning says more.

   📘 The new Framework now appears in half of all decisions. In its first week, 18 to 24 August, 11 percent cited one of its national policies. Last week it was 50 percent. Seven cases show what that looks like.

   🏘️ 150 homes at Wivelsfield Green were allowed after an inquiry (Lewes, 6005671). Supply was agreed at 2.77 years, a shortfall of more than 1,500 homes, so the scheme met national policy S5 on evidenced unmet need. The access road runs through Local Green Space, and the Inspector found it was transport infrastructure within the policy rather than inappropriate development. Up to 60 affordable homes and land for the primary school carried substantial weight.

   ☀️ A solar farm at Epney was allowed after a hearing (Stroud, 6007595). Policy W3 directs substantial weight to energy security, economic development and the transition to net zero. The land is grade 3b, and the harm to the canal, a non-designated heritage asset, was limited. The benefits clearly and convincingly outweighed the harms.

   🌳 Grey belt at the small end. Four homes at Halsall met all four limbs of GB7 1(g), including a sustainable location under TR3 (West Lancashire, 6010014). One home at Hitchin was grey belt too (North Hertfordshire, 6009720). Three homes at Merstham were limited infilling in a village under GB7(1)(c), opposite a conservation area whose setting was not harmed (Reigate and Banstead, 6007999).

   🍺 Last week a York pub stayed a pub. This week the Cross Gaits Inn at Blacko, Grade II listed with a 1736 datestone, was allowed to become a home (Pendle, 6007704 and 6007757). An earlier scheme had been dismissed. This time the marketing and viability evidence showed there was no reasonable prospect of the use being retained, which is the HC6 test, and the reuse secures the building.

   🛒 A food store on the former National Grid site at Stanmore was dismissed after an inquiry (Harrow, 6005822). The evidence on whether the Anmer Lodge site could still deliver food retail was conflicting, so the sequential test had not been fully explored.

   🏡 A rural exception scheme at Flintham, 14 affordable homes with three self-build plots, was dismissed after a hearing (Rushcliffe, 6002873). The Framework does not say robust evidence of need is required, but the Inspector held it would be illogical to allow a scheme that does not robustly demonstrate it. The 2022 survey had a 10.6 percent response and a margin of error of about 20 percent. Harm to the countryside, protected trees and the Flintham Conservation Area was not outweighed.

   🚶 A footway condition on a single self-build dwelling at Stibb Cross was deleted on appeal (Torridge, 6010706). The footway would have been expensive, disproportionate to the size of the proposal and therefore unreasonable under the Practice Guidance test, with no recorded pedestrian injury collisions nearby.

   Two weeks ago the thread was evidence that was missing. This week it is evidence that was there: the supply figure at Wivelsfield Green, the viability work at Blacko, the four limbs at Halsall. Where it was not, at Stanmore and Flintham, the appeal failed on the gap.

   Lewes 6005671Stroud 6007595West Lancashire 6010014North Hertfordshire 6009720Reigate and Banstead 6007999Pendle 60077046007757Harrow 6005822Rushcliffe 6002873Torridge 6010706

   #ThisWeekAtAppeal

Latest