Mead Realisations Limited v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) are both statements of national planning policy, although they serve different purposes. Where NPPF policy is broad and open-textured, PPG may clarify and explain its operation, including by identifying relevant considerations. It must be read harmoniously with the policy and applied flexibly; it is not a binding code imposing mandatory requirements. The flood-risk sequential test requires an evaluative judgment whether reasonably available, suitable lower-risk sites exist, having regard to the time envisaged for development and the possible use of smaller or part-sites. Later guidance may clarify existing policy and need not be contemporaneous. The appeal was dismissed.

Mead Realisations Limited sought permission for up to 75 dwellings on land in a high-probability floodplain. North Somerset Council refused permission. An inspector dismissed the company’s appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, finding that the proposal failed the flood-risk sequential test and conflicted with policy CS3 of the North Somerset Core Strategy. The inspector used paragraph 7-028 of the PPG, inserted in August 2022, to clarify paragraph 162 of the NPPF.

Holgate J dismissed the company’s statutory review claim under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990: [2024] EWHC 279 (Admin). A related claim by Redrow Homes Ltd. had been heard with it, but Redrow did not appeal. The central issues were whether the PPG could amend the NPPF and whether the inspector had treated it as elucidating, rather than replacing or rigidly prescribing, the NPPF policy.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. Sir Keith Lindblom gave the judgment, with Lord Justice Newey and Lady Justice Andrews agreeing.

1. The NPPF and PPG are both statements of national planning policy issued by the Secretary of State. Neither is legislation, and the PPG is not legally subordinate to the NPPF in a rigid hierarchy. Their purposes differ: the NPPF sets the general framework and essential principles, while the PPG explains how policy objectives are to be achieved. The precise relationship depends on the terms of the policy and guidance.
2. Planning policy is ultimately interpreted by the court, but not with the same linguistic precision ordinarily applied to contracts or statutes. The court must distinguish a true issue of interpretation from a complaint about the decision-maker’s application of policy. Both policy and guidance may be material considerations, and the weight given to them is for the decision-maker, subject to public-law review. Relevant factors may include their terms, timing and method of production. This approach was consistent with Tesco Stores Ltd. v Dundee City Council [2012] P.T.S.R. 938 and Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd. [2017] 1 W.L.R. 1865.
3. Paragraph 162 of the NPPF was broad and open-textured. Paragraph 7-028 of the PPG properly clarified the elastic concept of reasonably available sites. It identified relevant considerations, including suitability for the type of development, a reasonable prospect of availability at the time envisaged, and the possible use of smaller or part-sites. Its language was flexible and evaluative. It did not impose a binding code, mandatory additional requirements or a straitjacket.
4. The PPG did not amend, override or contradict paragraph 162. It explained the existing policy and could be read with it harmoniously. The fact that the guidance appeared about ten years after the NPPF policy did not prevent it from clarifying the policy’s intended operation. The court’s observation that there would be no legal obstacle if guidance actually amended NPPF policy was expressly hypothetical and unnecessary to the decision.
5. The inspector lawfully treated the PPG as a material consideration and applied the NPPF sequential test in its light. He was entitled to give lesser weight to the inconsistent criteria in the second part of policy CS3, while applying its first part, which incorporated the NPPF sequential test. His conclusions that the proposal failed the sequential test, conflicted with policy CS3 and the development plan as a whole, and was not justified in the planning balance disclosed no public-law error.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — dismissed the appeal: [2025] EWCA Civ 32.
• High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Planning Court — Holgate J dismissed the statutory review claim challenging the inspector’s decision: [2024] EWHC 279 (Admin).