Greystoke CB Limited v Secretary of State for Communities, Housing and Local Government & Anor

Paragraphs 115 and 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework must be read together. Paragraph 116 is engaged where highway impacts are treated as the principal or main reason for refusal and it is likely that the planning balance would have been different without them. It does not require a decision-maker to ignore material highway impacts or prescribe their weight. The decision-maker must ask whether the refusal is on highways grounds and whether the paragraph 116 threshold is met, while retaining a rational power to depart from policy. A failure to perform that exercise is an error of law. Where biodiversity net gain is a material consideration which must be taken into account, omitting it from the planning balance is also unlawful.

The claimant sought statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 of an Inspector’s decision dismissing its section 78 appeal against refusal of outline permission for a large B8 employment scheme.

The Inspector found no unacceptable highway-safety impact and no severe residual network impact under NPPF paragraph 116. He nevertheless treated insufficiently certain mitigation under paragraph 115(d) as substantial harm, refused permission in the planning balance, and did not list biodiversity net gain among the matters weighed. Grounds 1 and 2 challenged the highway reasoning and procedural fairness. Ground 4 challenged the failure to take biodiversity net gain into account. The central questions were whether paragraph 116 had to be applied at the planning-balance stage and whether biodiversity net gain had been considered.

Disposition. The statutory review succeeded on Grounds 1 and 4. The decision letter was quashed. Ground 2 was academic and the court expressed no view on its merits. The Inspector was required to reconsider the decision after receiving submissions on the effect of the judgment and paragraph 116, and to take biodiversity net gain into account.

1. Interaction of paragraphs 115 and 116. Paragraphs 115 and 116 of the NPPF had to be read together. Paragraph 116 supplemented paragraph 115 where the latter’s mitigation requirement was not satisfied. Permission should not be refused on highways grounds where the impact on highway safety was not unacceptable and residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, were not severe. This accorded with the interpretation of the predecessor provisions adopted in R (Hawkhurst Parish Council) v Tunbridge Wells Borough Council and others [2020] EWHC 3019 (Admin).
2. Meaning of on highways grounds. Paragraph 116 was not confined to cases where highways impacts were the sole reason for refusal. At a minimum, it applied where the decision-maker treated highways impacts as the principal or main reason for refusal and it was likely that the planning balance would have been different without them. The court’s treatment of the relevant policy language as a legal issue was consistent with R (Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) & Ors) v North Yorkshire County Council [2020] UKSC 3.
3. Planning balance. Paragraph 116 did not require material highway impacts to be ignored or dictate the weight given to them. Under sections 70(2)(c) and 79(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, material considerations remained relevant. Paragraph 116 was itself a material consideration at the planning-balance stage. The Inspector had to ask whether the refusal was on highways grounds and whether the paragraph 116 threshold was met. He could depart from the policy on a rational planning basis, but failed to undertake that exercise.
4. Biodiversity net gain. Proceeding on the Secretary of State’s assumption, without deciding, that biodiversity net gain was a material consideration which had to be taken into account, the court found that the Inspector had not included it in the planning balance. Ground 4 therefore succeeded, although it required no separate relief.

This was a statutory review at first instance. The Inspector’s decision dated 22 July 2025 dismissed the claimant’s section 78 appeal against the Council’s refusal of planning permission. The High Court quashed that decision on Grounds 1 and 4 and directed reconsideration; Ground 2 was left academic.