Introduction

The case of Gladman Developments Ltd v. Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government ([2021] EWCA Civ 104) addresses pivotal questions concerning the interpretation of planning policies within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Heard by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on February 3, 2021, this judgment scrutinizes the application of the "presumption in favour of sustainable development" as delineated in paragraph 11d(ii) of the NPPF. The appellants, Gladman Developments Ltd., contested the refusals of planning permissions for housing projects by Corby Borough Council and Uttlesford District Council, seeking a statutory review of the District Inspector's decisions.

The central issues revolved around whether decision-makers must exclude relevant development plan policies when applying the "tilted balance" under paragraph 11d(ii) and whether the "tilted balance" should be executed as a distinct, sequential process separate from the statutory duties under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the original decisions of the District Inspectors, thereby dismissing the applications for planning statutory review by Gladman Developments Ltd. The judges affirmed that, under paragraph 11d(ii) of the NPPF, development plan policies remain relevant and must be considered within the "tilted balance" exercise. Furthermore, the court rejected the notion that the "tilted balance" and the statutory duty under section 38(6) must be conducted as separate steps, allowing for a more integrated approach to decision-making.

The judges emphasized that the judgment aligns with established case law, including landmark cases like Hopkins Homes Ltd., Crane v Secretary of State, and Hallam Land Management Ltd., reinforcing the interconnectedness of the NPPF policies and development plan considerations in planning decisions.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references prior cases that have shaped the interpretation of the NPPF, particularly focusing on the "presumption in favour of sustainable development." Key cases include:

• Hopkins Homes Ltd. v. Secretary of State ([2017] 1 WLR 1865)
• Barwood Strategic Land II LLP v East Staffordshire Borough Council ([2018] PTSR 88)
• Crane v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 425 (Admin)
• Woodcock Holdings Ltd. v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 1173 (Admin)
• Hallam Land Management Ltd. v Secretary of State [2018] EWCA Civ 1808

These cases collectively underscore the necessity of integrating development plan policies within the "tilted balance" assessment, contrary to the appellants' contention that such policies should be excluded.

Legal Reasoning

The court's reasoning focused on interpreting paragraph 11d(ii) of the NPPF, determining whether it mandates the exclusion of development plan policies during the "tilted balance" exercise. The judges concluded that there is no explicit or implicit requirement to exclude these policies. Instead, development plan policies remain pertinent and must be weighed alongside NPPF policies when assessing a development proposal's sustainability.

Furthermore, the court dismissed the argument that the "tilted balance" and the statutory duty under section 38(6) must be conducted as separate steps. Drawing on Lord Clyde's observations in City of Edinburgh Council v Secretary of State for Scotland, the judges affirmed that decision-makers have the discretion to adopt a holistic approach, integrating both assessments seamlessly without the rigidity of a bifurcated process.

The decision reinforces that the NPPF operates within the statutory framework, recognizing the primacy of development plans while simultaneously promoting sustainable development. The "tilted balance" serves as a nuanced tool allowing decision-makers to consider a broad spectrum of policies and material considerations holistically.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future planning decisions within England and Wales. By affirming the relevance of development plan policies within the "tilted balance," it ensures that local strategies and long-term planning directives continue to hold sway in development assessments. Additionally, by allowing flexibility in the application process, it empowers decision-makers to adapt their approach based on the specific circumstances of each case, fostering a more integrated and context-sensitive planning environment.

The ruling also clarifies the interplay between national and local policies, ensuring that neither operates in isolation. This harmonization is crucial for achieving coherent and sustainable development outcomes that align with both national objectives and local priorities.

Complex Concepts Simplified

The Tilted Balance

The "tilted balance" is a policy mechanism within the NPPF that guides decision-makers in weighing the benefits and adverse impacts of a development proposal, especially when development plan policies are deemed out-of-date or absent. Paragraph 11d(ii) specifically addresses scenarios where local housing land supply is insufficient, tilting the balance in favor of granting permission unless significant adverse impacts are identified.

Development Plan Policies

These are localized strategies and objectives set by local planning authorities to guide development within their jurisdictions. They encompass various aspects like housing needs, environmental protection, and heritage conservation, ensuring that development aligns with broader community goals.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

This statutory duty mandates that planning decisions must primarily adhere to the development plan unless material considerations suggest otherwise. It establishes the framework within which policies like the NPPF operate, ensuring that local plans maintain their authority in decision-making processes.

Conclusion

The Gladman Developments Ltd v. Secretary of State case serves as a cornerstone in the interpretation of the NPPF's "presumption in favour of sustainable development." By reaffirming the importance of development plan policies within the "tilted balance" and rejecting the necessity for a rigid, sequential assessment process, the Court of Appeal has reinforced a harmonized and contextually adaptable approach to planning decisions.

This judgment ensures that both national sustainability objectives and local planning strategies are duly considered, fostering balanced and sustainable development outcomes. For practitioners and stakeholders within the planning sector, it underscores the enduring relevance of development plans and the nuanced application of NPPF policies, guiding future developments within a robust legal framework.