Supreme Court to reconsider meaning of "relevant policies for the supply of housing"

The Supreme Court has decided to review the Court of Appeal's judgment in Suffolk Coastal D.C. v Hopkins Homes and Richborough Estates Partnership LLP v Cheshire East Borough Council.

The  Councils' applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court following Lord Justice Lindblom's ruling that the term 'relevant supply of housing' in paragraph 49 of the NPPF was to be interpreted widely. 

The 'wide' definition upheld by the Court of Appeal meant that policies for the protection of Green Belt or heritage protection policies could be considered “policies for the supply of housing” for the purposes of paragraph 49 and could be treated as “out of date”  where a Council could not demonstrate a five year housing land supply and  the presumption in favour of sustainable development came into effect.

The Supreme Court's ruling on the appeal, once issued, should clarify the meaning of this section of the NPPF once and for all.  Until then, we are back in the realms of uncertainty....

The Supreme Court has granted permission to Suffolk Coastal District Council and Cheshire East Council to appeal the landmark decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Suffolk Coastal D.C. v Hopkins Homes and Richborough Estates Partnership LLP v Cheshire East Borough Council.

The decision re-opens the controversy over the meaning of “relevant policies for the supply of housing” in paragraph 49 of the NPPF.

In his judgement in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Lindblom had come down on a “wide” definition, which had included policies for the protection of Green Belt and AONB as “policies for the supply of housing” to be treated as “out of date” where a Council could not demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and triggering the presumption in favour of planning permission in paragraph 14 of the NPPF.”