St Modwen Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1643 (20 October 2017)
The Secretary of State and Inspector did not misinterpret or misapply the NPPF policy for a five-year supply of housing land. The requirement is to identify a supply of specific deliverable sites with a realistic prospect of delivery within five years, not to guarantee or assess the probability of actual delivery. The Inspector's distinction between supply and delivery was correct, and her planning judgment on the robustness of the council's housing supply was lawful. The Appellant's criticisms were directed at language, not substance, and there was no error of law or inadequacy of reasons.
- Citation
- [2017] EWCA Civ 1643
- Parties
- Appellant: St Modwen Developments Ltd.; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: East Riding of Yorkshire Council; Third Respondent: Save Our Ferriby Action Group
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 20 October 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Planning Statutory Appeal Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Administrative Court
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Housing Land Supply, Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Deliverability of Housing Sites, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions, Development Plan Conflict
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
St Modwen Developments Ltd.
Appellant
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
First Respondent
East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Second Respondent
Save Our Ferriby Action Group
Third Respondent
Procedural Posture
Planning Statutory Appeal Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Administrative Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Secretary of State misinterpreted or misapplied government policy for housing supply in NPPF paragraph 47, specifically the concepts of 'supply' and 'delivery'
- 2 Whether the Secretary of State misdirected himself or failed to provide adequate reasons regarding the council's housing trajectory
- 3 Whether the Secretary of State erred in law in conclusions on the council's record of housing delivery
Ratio Decidendi
The Secretary of State and Inspector did not misinterpret or misapply the NPPF policy for a five-year supply of housing land. The requirement is to identify a supply of specific deliverable sites with a realistic prospect of delivery within five years, not to guarantee or assess the probability of actual delivery. The Inspector's distinction between supply and delivery was correct, and her planning judgment on the robustness of the council's housing supply was lawful. The Appellant's criticisms were directed at language, not substance, and there was no error of law or inadequacy of reasons.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The order of Ouseley J. is affirmed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment