Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd and another

National planning policy is guidance and a material consideration. It remains subordinate to the statutory development plan. Paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework applies to policies whose purpose is the supply of housing. A failure to demonstrate five years’ deliverable housing land renders those policies out of date and triggers the paragraph 14 tilted balance. It does not make restrictive policies serving other purposes notionally out of date. Those policies remain relevant, and their weight is a matter of planning judgment. Courts determine the objective meaning of policy in context, but the application of policy and the weighing of considerations belong to the planning decision-maker.

These conjoined appeals concerned housing proposals at Yoxford and Willaston. At Yoxford, a planning inspector upheld Suffolk Coastal District Council’s refusal of permission. Supperstone J quashed that decision in [2015] EWHC 132 (Admin), and the Court of Appeal upheld his order in [2016] EWCA Civ 168.

At Willaston, an inspector granted permission after Cheshire East Borough Council failed to determine the application. Lang J quashed the permission in [2015] EWHC 410 (Admin), but the Court of Appeal restored it in [2016] EWCA Civ 168. Both councils appealed. The central issues were the meaning of “relevant policies for the supply of housing” in paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework, its relationship with the paragraph 14 presumption, and the respective roles of courts and planning decision-makers.

1. Both appeals were dismissed unanimously. Lord Carnwath delivered the leading judgment, with which every other member of the court agreed. Lord Gill, with Lord Neuberger, Lord Clarke and Lord Hodge, added observations consistent with the result. The Willaston permission remained effective. The Yoxford inspector’s decision remained quashed, and that planning appeal was to be re-determined.

2. The National Planning Policy Framework was guidance and a material consideration under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It could not displace or distort the statutory priority given to the development plan by section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Planning policy was to be interpreted objectively in its linguistic and policy context, but not as though it were a statute or contract. Following Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13, interpretation was for the court, while application and weight were matters of planning judgment, reviewable on conventional public law grounds.

3. Paragraph 49 referred to policies whose purpose was the supply of housing. It did not extend to every policy that affected housing supply. If an authority could not demonstrate five years’ deliverable housing land, the shortfall rendered the housing-supply policies out of date and triggered paragraph 14. It did not notionally render unrelated restrictive policies out of date. Under paragraph 14, permission should ordinarily be granted unless adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits or specific policies indicated that development should be restricted. Restrictive policies remained relevant, but the weight given to them was for the decision-maker.

4. At Willaston, the development plan was independently out of date because its period had expired. The inspector had wrongly classified the countryside policy as a housing-supply policy, but the error was immaterial. He had properly reduced the weight of boundaries derived from obsolete housing requirements, separately considered the green-gap function, and lawfully applied the paragraph 14 balance.

5. At Yoxford, the inspector had allowed the supposed status of the settlement boundary as an up-to-date policy to give it added weight. The boundary was, at least partly, the counterpart of inadequate housing policies. That error may have distorted the paragraph 14 balance and could not be treated as immaterial. The Supreme Court rejected the separate criticism of his treatment of the heritage policies: paragraph 215 required their weight to reflect their consistency with the Framework, but did not replace them with paragraph 135, and the required balanced judgment could be found in the overall planning balance.

1. United Kingdom Supreme Court: In [2017] UKSC 37 , dismissed both councils’ appeals. It upheld the Willaston permission and affirmed the quashing of the Yoxford inspector’s decision.
2. Court of Appeal: In [2016] EWCA Civ 168 , upheld the quashing of the Yoxford decision, allowed Richborough’s appeal in the Willaston matter and restored the Willaston permission.
3. High Court—Yoxford: Supperstone J quashed the inspector’s refusal in [2015] EWHC 132 (Admin) .
4. High Court—Willaston: Lang J quashed the inspector’s grant of permission in [2015] EWHC 410 (Admin) .
5. Planning inspectors: The Yoxford inspector dismissed the developer’s appeal against refusal. The Willaston inspector allowed the developer’s appeal and granted permission.