The Court of Appeal's ruling in Mead Realisations Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2025] EWCA Civ 32 has significant implications for planning professionals. The court determined that the National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) holds the same legal status as the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This means that planners must give equal consideration to both documents when making decisions.
The case involved a proposed development of 75 dwellings in an area prone to flooding. The planning inspector denied permission, citing non-compliance with the flood risk "sequential test" as outlined in both the NPPF and PPG. The developer challenged this decision, arguing that the PPG should not override the NPPF. However, the Court of Appeal upheld the inspector's decision, stating that the PPG provides necessary clarification and guidance on applying NPPF policies, particularly regarding what constitutes a "reasonably available site" in areas with lower flood risk.
This ruling emphasises that both the NPPF and PPG are authoritative sources of national planning policy. Planners are now required to consider updates and changes to the PPG with the same level of attention as they do for the NPPF. This ensures that planning decisions are informed by the most current and comprehensive policy guidance available.
In summary, the Court of Appeal's decision clarifies the equal legal standing of the NPPF and PPG, mandating that planners integrate guidance from both documents into their decision-making processes, especially concerning assessments like the flood risk sequential test.
Comments