Gladman Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2021] EWCA Civ 104 (03 February 2021)

Gladman Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2021] EWCA Civ 104 (03 February 2021)

The Court of Appeal held that when applying the 'tilted balance' under NPPF paragraph 11d)ii, decision-makers are not legally required to exclude development plan policies from consideration. The assessment may, and often should, take into account relevant development plan policies as part of weighing adverse impacts and benefits. There is no statutory or policy requirement for the 'tilted balance' and the section 38(6) duty to be performed as separate and sequential steps; the decision-maker may apply both together or separately as appropriate. The policy in paragraph 213 of the NPPF is not excluded from the 'tilted balance' assessment. The appeals were dismissed.

Citation
[2021] EWCA Civ 104
Parties
Appellant: Gladman Developments Limited; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: Corby Borough Council; Third Respondent: Uttlesford District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Planning Statutory Review (section 288, Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Appeal From High Court (planning Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Paragraph 11d)ii, Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development, Role of Development Plan Policies in Planning Balance, Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Five Year Housing Land Supply, Sequential Approach to Planning Decision Making
Planning Law Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Paragraph 11d)ii Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Role of Development Plan Policies in Planning Balance Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Five Year Housing Land Supply +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gladman Developments Limited

Appellant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

Corby Borough Council

Second Respondent

Uttlesford District Council

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Planning Statutory Review (section 288, Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Appeal From High Court (planning Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether development plan policies must be excluded from the 'tilted balance' under NPPF paragraph 11d)ii
  2. 2 Whether the 'tilted balance' and section 38(6) duty must be performed as separate and sequential steps
  3. 3 Whether paragraph 213 of the NPPF is excluded from the 'tilted balance' assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that when applying the 'tilted balance' under NPPF paragraph 11d)ii, decision-makers are not legally required to exclude development plan policies from consideration. The assessment may, and often should, take into account relevant development plan policies as part of weighing adverse impacts and benefits. There is no statutory or policy requirement for the 'tilted balance' and the section 38(6) duty to be performed as separate and sequential steps; the decision-maker may apply both together or separately as appropriate. The policy in paragraph 213 of the NPPF is not excluded from the 'tilted balance' assessment. The appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; High Court order refusing permission to apply for planning statutory review upheld.