Introduction

The case of Mead Realisations Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor ([2025] EWCA Civ 32) adjudicated by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on January 30, 2025, addresses pivotal issues in the realm of UK planning law. The central question revolves around whether an inspector erred in legally interpreting the relationship between the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), specifically concerning the "sequential test" for developments in flood-prone areas. The parties involved include Mead Realisations Ltd., the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and North Somerset Council.

Summary of the Judgment

Mead Realisations Ltd. appealed against a decision dismissing its claim for planning statutory review concerning the refusal of planning permission for a housing development in a high-risk floodplain area. The primary contention was whether the inspector misapplied the "sequential test" as outlined in the NPPF and elucidated by the PPG. The Inspector upheld the council's refusal based on the sequential test, effectively steering development away from high-risk flood zones to more secure areas. The initial judgment by Holgate J. was upheld by the Court of Appeal, affirming that the PPG can indeed clarify and even amend the NPPF without overstepping legal boundaries. Consequently, the appeal by Mead Realisations Ltd. was dismissed, reinforcing the authority of PPG in defining and interpreting NPPF policies.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references prior High Court decisions to elucidate the non-binding nature of the PPG in relation to the NPPF. Notable cases include:

• Menston Action Group v City of Bradford [2016] EWHC 127 (Admin)
• Solo Retail Ltd. v Torridge District Council [2019] EWHC 489 (Admin)
• R. (on the application of White Waltham Airfield Ltd.) v Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead [2021] EWHC 3408 (Admin)
• Bramley Solar Farm Residents Group v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2023] EWHC 2842 (Admin)

These cases collectively established that while the PPG serves as valuable guidance, it does not possess the authority to override or impose mandatory requirements beyond the scope of the NPPF.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal, led by Lord Justice Newey and supported by Lady Justice Andrews, delved into the intricate relationship between the NPPF and the PPG. The court upheld Holgate J.'s interpretation that the PPG can clarify and, to an extent, amend the NPPF without being unlawful. Key points in the legal reasoning include:

• Interpretative Harmony: Both the NPPF and PPG are expressions of national planning policy issued by the Secretary of State. They are intended to be read together, with the PPG providing practical guidance to implement the broader policies outlined in the NPPF.
• Flexibility in Guidance: The PPG is designed to be an adaptable tool that can evolve with changing circumstances, allowing the government to refine policies without necessitating formal legislative amendments to the NPPF.
• Judicial Deference: The court emphasized that the interpretation of planning policy is inherently a matter for the court, which approaches it with the requisite flexibility, recognizing the non-prescriptive nature of such policies.
• Absence of Legal Constraints: There exists no legal principle preventing the Secretary of State from using the PPG to amend or clarify the NPPF. The PPG operates within the same legal authority as the NPPF, ensuring consistency and coherence in national planning policy.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future planning cases in the UK:

• Strengthened Role of PPG: The decision reinforces the authority of the PPG in shaping and refining the application of NPPF policies, providing clearer guidelines for both planners and developers.
• Consistency in Planning Decisions: By affirming that the PPG can amend the NPPF, the judgment promotes greater consistency and predictability in planning decision-making, particularly in areas sensitive to environmental risks like flooding.
• Enhanced Judicial Clarity: The court's detailed analysis serves as a reference point for interpreting the interplay between different layers of planning policy, aiding in the resolution of similar disputes.
• Policy Evolution Facilitation: The ability to amend the NPPF via the PPG allows for more responsive and timely updates to planning policies, accommodating emerging challenges such as climate change and sustainable development.

Complex Concepts Simplified

To facilitate a better understanding of the judgment, it's essential to demystify some complex legal terminologies and concepts:

• National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): A comprehensive document outlining the government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It sets the overarching principles for local planning authorities.
• Planning Practice Guidance (PPG): Supplementary material to the NPPF, offering detailed guidance on implementing the policies set out in the NPPF. While the NPPF provides the broad framework, the PPG interprets and applies these policies to specific contexts.
• Sequential Test: A policy approach aimed at directing new developments to areas with the lowest risk of flooding. The test mandates that development should not be permitted if suitable alternative sites with lower flood risk are available.
• Reasonably Available Sites: Locations that are suitable for the type of development proposed and have a reasonable prospect of being developed at the required time. The PPG provides a more nuanced definition of this term, expanding on its application.
• Development Plan: A local authority's strategy document that outlines the long-term planning framework for an area, including priorities for land use and development.
• Statutory Review: A legal process where a decision made by a public body can be challenged in court, ensuring that it complies with the law.

Conclusion

The Mead Realisations Ltd v Secretary of State case establishes a critical precedent in UK planning law by affirming the authority of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) to clarify and even amend the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Court of Appeal's decision underscores the synergistic relationship between national policy and practical guidance, ensuring that planning decisions remain both policy-compliant and adaptable to evolving circumstances. This judgment not only clarifies the legal standing of the PPG but also enhances the robustness and responsiveness of the national planning system, particularly in addressing environmental challenges such as flood risk management. For planners, developers, and legal practitioners, this case serves as a landmark reference, reinforcing the importance of aligning development proposals with both the NPPF and the detailed directives of the PPG to ensure lawful and sustainable outcomes.