Braintree DC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2018] EWCA Civ 610

From case summary:

The phrase “isolated homes in the countryside” simply connoted a dwelling that was physically separate or remote from a settlement. Such a reading of the policy in para.55 fit the broader context of the policies for sustainable development in the NPPF. The language of para.55 was entirely unambiguous and there was therefore no need to resort to other statements of policy. The local authority’s interpretation was a strained and unnatural reading of the policy, whereby the question of whether a proposed new dwelling was an “isolated” new home under the policy would depend on the presence or absence of services in that particular settlement. That could mean that a proposed dwelling on a site within a settlement, with several existing dwellings surrounding it, would have to be regarded as a new isolated home simply because it did not have any services of its own, whereas a dwelling in a smaller settlement that happened to have services within it, would not be isolated.