Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
John Pugh-Smith of 39 Essex Chambers considers the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd; Richborough Estates Partnership LLP v Cheshire East Borough Council and another, a decision which puts to rest years of controversy.
Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd; Richborough Estates Partnership LLP v Cheshire East Borough Council and another  EWCA Civ 168,  All ER (D) 172 (Mar).
The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled on two conjoined appeals concerning the meaning and effect of paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Among other things, it held that, ‘[relevant] policies for the supply of housing’, meant ‘relevant policies affecting the supply of housing’. A ‘relevant’ policy was simply a policy relevant to the application for planning permission before the decision-maker, relevant either because it was a policy relating specifically to the provision of new housing in the local planning authority's area or because it bore upon the principle of the site in question being developed for housing.
NPPF14 contains a presumption in favour of granting planning permission for sustainable development which either accords with the statutory development plan or where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date. NPPF49 advises that:
‘“[…]relevant policies for the supply of housing” should not be considered up-to-date if a local planning authority (“LPA”) cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites’.
The decision puts to rest years of controversy, played out in numerous planning appeals and a confusing series of High Court judgments, as to whether a ‘narrow’ interpretation should be taken of this phrase in which the words are construed as meaning ‘relevant policies providing for the amount and distribution of new housing development and the allocation of sites for such development’ or the so-called ‘intermediat
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234