Mead Realisations Limited v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor

Mead Realisations Limited v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) did not amend or override the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) policy but clarified and elucidated its meaning. The inspector lawfully applied the sequential test as clarified by the PPG, and properly assessed the proposal's conflict with both national and local policy. There is no legal principle preventing the Secretary of State from adopting guidance in the PPG that clarifies or amends the NPPF. The appeal is dismissed as no public law error occurred.

Parties
Appellant: Mead Realisations Limited; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: North Somerset Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sequential Test, Flood Risk, Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Planning Practice Guidance (ppg), Development Plan Policy, Material Considerations
Planning Law Administrative Law Sequential Test Flood Risk Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Planning Practice Guidance (ppg) Development Plan Policy Material Considerations

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mead Realisations Limited

Appellant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

North Somerset Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector erred in law by misunderstanding or misapplying policy and guidance on the sequential test for development in areas at risk of flooding
  2. 2 Whether the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) can amend or elucidate the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
  3. 3 Whether the inspector lawfully treated the PPG as elucidating the NPPF

Ratio Decidendi

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) did not amend or override the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) policy but clarified and elucidated its meaning. The inspector lawfully applied the sequential test as clarified by the PPG, and properly assessed the proposal's conflict with both national and local policy. There is no legal principle preventing the Secretary of State from adopting guidance in the PPG that clarifies or amends the NPPF. The appeal is dismissed as no public law error occurred.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; no error of law found in the inspector's decision or the judgment below.