Peel Investments v. Secretary of State: Upholding Environmental Protections Over Housing Supply

Introduction

The case of Peel Investments (North) Ltd v. Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government & Anor ([2020] EWCA Civ 1175) presents a pivotal moment in the interpretation and application of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) concerning the balance between housing development and environmental protection. This case revolved around Peel Investments' applications for planning permissions to construct residential homes within the Worsley Greenway area in West Salford, a designated Green Belt region overseen by the Salford City Council.

The crux of the dispute lay in whether the existing environmental policies within the Salford Unitary Development Plan (SUDP) were "out-of-date" as per paragraph 11d of the NPPF, thereby influencing the decision-making process regarding the approval or refusal of the housing developments.

Summary of the Judgment

The England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) ultimately dismissed Peel Investments' appeals, upholding the decision to refuse planning permission for both proposed developments. The court affirmed that the environmental protection policies within the SUDP, specifically Policy EN2 and Policy R4, remained current and were not rendered "out-of-date" despite the expiration of the plan period in 2009. Consequently, these policies held substantial weight in the planning decision-making process, outweighing the benefits of the proposed housing developments.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced key precedents to contextualize the interpretation of "out-of-date" policies within the NPPF framework:

• Hopkins Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] UKSC 37: Established that the NPPF is a statement of policy rather than statutory law, and its interpretation involves legal judgment.
• Bloor Homes East Midlands Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWHC 754 (Admin): Clarified the distinctions between "absent," "silent," and "out-of-date" development plan policies.
• Gladman Developments Ltd v Daventry District Council and SSCLG [2016] EWCA Civ 1146: Emphasized that the mere age of a development plan’s policies does not render them out-of-date.
• Oxton Farm and another v D Noble Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 805: Detailed the conditions under which the "tilted balance" in the NPPF is engaged.
• Paul Newman New Homes Ltd v SSHCLG [2019] EWHC 2367 (Admin): Addressed the interpretation of "out-of-date" in the context of policy expiration and consistency with the NPPF.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on the interpretation of paragraph 11d of the 2018 NPPF, which introduces a "tilted balance" favoring sustainable development, including housing, when development plan policies are absent, silent, or out-of-date. Key points in the reasoning included:

• Definition of "Out-of-Date": The court determined that a policy is "out-of-date" only if it has been overtaken by events or changes in national policy, not merely because the plan period has expired.
• Material Considerations: Even without specific housing policies, existing environmental protections retained their effectiveness and influence over planning decisions.
• Consistency with NPPF: Policies within the SUDP remained consistent with the NPPF, maintaining their applicability regardless of the plan’s expiration.
• Strategic Importance of Environmental Policies: Recognizing the Green Belt's role in preventing urban sprawl, the court upheld the importance of policies like EN2 in securing environmental assets.

The court rejected the appellant's arguments that the expiration of the development plan automatically rendered all its policies out-of-date. It emphasized that the NPPF requires a nuanced assessment of each policy's current relevance and consistency with national guidelines.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the strength of environmental protection policies within development plans, even beyond their formal expiration dates, provided they remain consistent with national policy frameworks like the NPPF. It underscores the judiciary's role in maintaining a balance between developmental needs and environmental conservation, ensuring that critical green assets are preserved against urban expansion pressures.

Future cases will likely reference this judgment when assessing the validity of saved policies in time-expired plans, particularly in contexts where environmental considerations are paramount. Urban developers and local councils alike must ensure that their planning documents align closely with current national policies to withstand judicial scrutiny.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Out-of-Date Policies

A policy is deemed "out-of-date" not solely based on the passage of time but on whether it no longer aligns with current events, societal needs, or national policies. This determination involves both factual assessments and judicial judgment.

The Tilted Balance

The "tilted balance" refers to a policy shift in the NPPF that leans in favor of sustainable development, including the provision of housing. This tilt is activated when key development plan policies are missing, silent, or outdated, thereby favoring the approval of development proposals unless significant adverse impacts are evident.

Saved Policies

"Saved policies" are policies from a development plan that have been preserved beyond the plan’s expiration date through a directive from the Secretary of State. These policies remain in force and continue to guide planning decisions, provided they are consistent with current national policies.

Conclusion

The Peel Investments judgment serves as a significant affirmation of the enduring power of environmental safeguards within planning frameworks. By clarifying the conditions under which policies remain current beyond their formal expiration, the court has provided clearer guidance for both planners and developers. The decision underscores the necessity of aligning local development plans with national policies to ensure sustainable development, balancing the imperative to meet housing needs with the protection of vital environmental assets.

In essence, this case reaffirms that environmental policies, when thoroughly integrated and consistent with national frameworks, retain their authority and can effectively limit development even in the absence of updated housing policies.