- Court of Appeal confirms that relevant local plan policy can prevent application of tilted balance in NPPF (Paul Newman Homes v SSHCLG)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Planning analysis: Not for the first time, the Court of Appeal was asked whether a planning inspector had correctly interpreted paragraph 11d) of the 2018 National Planning Policy Framework (2018 NPPF) in dismissing an appeal for residential development in the countryside. It was also asked to interpret a policy in the Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan, and whether it was ‘relevant’ to the determination of the appeal. The High Court had held that the inspector’s interpretation was correct, and the Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. The case is important for the guidance the Court of Appeal has provided as to what ‘relevant’ means, and the application of the tilted balance triggered by para 11d). Written by John Litton QC of Landmark Chambers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial