The Court of Appeal backed the government today in a ruling over the proper meaning of a vital paragraph in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) relating to local authorities’ obligations relating to a five-year supply of housing.
The judges had being asked to rule on the meaning and scope of paragraph 49 of the NPPF. The paragraph says that “relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the local authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing sites.”
The specific issue at stake is how to decide whether a policy “comes within” paragraph 49, potentially disapplying it entirely and engaging paragraph 14 of the NPPF which has a presumption in favour of sustainable development, thus giving developers a higher chance of success if they can convince a court that the local authority’s five-year supply policy is flawed.
“The contentious words are ‘[relevant] policies for the supply of housing’,” Lindblom J said in the ruling today. “In our view, the meaning of those words, construed objectively in their proper context, is ‘relevant policies for the supply of housing’. This corresponds to the ‘wider’ interpretation which was advocated by the secretary of state in these appeals.”
This is a question that has been considered several times at first instance without entirely consistent results, but not until now by the Court of Appeal. Lindblom J said he and his fellow judges had sought to, “bring much-needed clarity to the meaning for the policy. The benefit of this for local planning authorities, developers and local communities will be obvious.”
He explained further the court’s “wide” interpretation of the paragraph:
“Our interpretation of the policy does not confine the concept of ‘policies for the supply of housing’ merely to policies in the development plan that provide positively for the delivery of new housing in terms of numbers and distribution or the allocation of sites”, he said. “It recognises that the concept extends to plan policies whose effect is to influence the supply of housing land by restricting the locations where new housing may be developed.”
This includes, “for example, policies for the green belt, policies for the general protection of the countryside, policies for conserving the landscape of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks, policies for the conservation of wildlife or cultural heritage, and various policies whose purpose is to protect the local environment in one way or another by preventing or limiting development. It reflects the reality that policies may serve to form the supply of housing land either by creating it or by constraining it – that policies of both kinds make the supply what it is.”
The Court of Appeal joined together two cases with similar issues to decide the point. The cases are:
Richborough Estates v Cheshire East Borough Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes
Richborough Estates v Cheshire East Borough Council and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government