Leading London-based public law firm, Sharpe Pritchard, has acted in a landmark case at the Supreme Court concerning the scope of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), relating to five year housing land supply.
Sharpe Pritchard acted for the solicitors to Suffolk Coastal District Council and Cheshire East District Council in Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd & Richborough Estates Partnership LLP v Cheshire East Borough Council [2017] UKSC 36.
The case arrived at the Supreme Court following legal arguments in the Planning Court and at the Court of Appeal concerning decisions which involved the two authorities and which turned on the interpretation of paragraph 49 and 14 of the NPPF.
The judgment in the case leads to a new interpretation of “policies for the supply of housing” in paragraph 49 of the NPPF:
“Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.”
The two authorities argued in the appeals to the Supreme Court that the term “relevant policies for the supply of housing” in paragraph 49 of the NPPF should be given a narrow meaning, instead of the broader interpretation given by the Court of Appeal, with support from the Government.
In essence, “policies for the supply of housing” had until now been interpreted as being interchangeable with “policies affecting the supply of housing”.
This latter interpretation meant policies that protect the countryside, Green Belt, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and designated heritage assets could be ‘deemed’ out of date in situations where the authority could not demonstrate the deliverability of five years’ supply of housing land.
While the appeals were dismissed on less significant grounds, the Supreme Court held that the narrow interpretation which the councils argued for was correct. This means that a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal and of six out of seven decisions in the Planning Court have been wrongly decided on this particular issue.
Alastair Lewis, partner and head of the firm’s Planning and Parliamentary team at Sharpe Pritchard said:
“The decision clarifies the reach of development plans and local plans, and should provide more certainty for planning authorities and developers.”
Sharpe Pritchard instructed Martin Kingston QC, Hugh Richards, Jonathan Clay and Ashley Bowes in the case.
This article is for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this page was first published.
