Which NPPF policies mean an automatic refusal?

Why the distinction matters

The policies governing the principle of development list circumstances in which the benefits are 'likely to be substantially outweighed', and they say expressly that the list is not exhaustive. That is balance language: it makes the case harder, not impossible.

Only where a policy's own text says proposals should be refused does the framework mandate an outcome. Confusing the two overstates the difficulty of a site, which is as unhelpful as understating it.

Neighbourhood plan conflict is not a mandate

Conflicting with a recent neighbourhood plan that has already allocated sites for its housing requirement is described as making the benefits likely to be substantially outweighed. It is a serious obstacle and it is meant to be. But it is a balance factor, not an automatic refusal.

The density one catches people out

Development that does not make efficient use of land should be refused. That includes failing the minimum density near a well-connected station, and it applies wherever the site sits. It is the refusal trigger most often engaged by accident, because it is engaged by building too sparingly rather than by any constraint on the land.

Heritage Coast is a higher bar, not a mandate

Major development within an area defined as Heritage Coast should not be supported unless it is compatible with the special character of the area. Non-major development simply has to be consistent with that character. Neither is framed as a mandate to refuse.