Councils and developers welcome Supreme Court planning judgement

In its judgement today the Supreme Court dismissed the joint appeals of Cheshire East Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council against developers Richborough Estates and Hopkins Homes.

The developers had been applying to build homes in the local authority areas but had seen their applications rejected, despite the absence of a five-year land supply.

Part of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that if a council does not have an up-to-date five-year housing supply there should be a presumption in favour of development, in an effort to boost housebuilding.

Lord Brian Gill said the NPPF’s message to authorities is “unmistakable”, with a clear focus on boosting housing supply.

However, the judges stressed the NPPF is no more than “guidance” and cannot “displace the primacy” of a statutory development plan, which is part of a council’s Local Plan, and the courts should respect the expertise of planning inspectors.

The judgement stated: “The courts should respect the expertise of the specialist planning inspectors, and start at least from the presumption that they will have understood the framework correctly.”

Previously, legal battles between councils and developers had been preoccupied over whether a development plan is “out of date”, as defined by the NPPF.

The judgement also said a green belt policy in a Local Plan should not be considered out of date “merely because the housing policies in another part of the plan fail to meet the NPPF objectives”.

Sean Hannaby, director of planning at Cheshire East Council, said that despite the fact the council’s appeal was dismissed, it was a “momentous victory” in all councils’ battles to resist unwanted housing developments.

Simon Ricketts, the lawyer who represented Richborough Estates, said: “It’s a move away from seeing the NPPF as making specific changes to the weight given in Local Plans… Councils will now take a more site-by-site analysis: sites shouldn’t be automatically ruled out because there’s a policy that restrains development – it needs to be weighed up against supply questions… It’s a slight move in favour of development.”