0
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2019] EWCA Civ 2200 The main question in this appeal is whether a local planning authority, when assessing the five-year supply of housing land, misdirected itself on the relevant policies in the National Planning Policy Framework ("the NPPF") published by the Government in March 2012. It is not the first case of its kind. And no new issue of law is involved. The appellant, East Bergholt Parish Council, appeals against the order dated 7 December 2018 of Sir Ross Cranston, sitting as a judge of the High Court, by which he dismissed its claim for judicial review of three grants of planning permission by the respondent, Babergh District Council, for housing development on sites in East Bergholt. In total, the three developments would provide up to 229 new dwellings: 10 for residents over the age of 55 on a site at Hadleigh Road, for which planning permission was granted on 10 November 2017; 144 on a site at Moores Lane, for which permission was granted on 23 November 2017; and up to 75 on a site at Heath Road, for which permission was granted on 9 February 2018. The district council's Planning Committee resolved to approve all three proposals on 2 August 2017. In each case the proposal did not accord with the development plan, which included the Babergh Core Strategy, adopted by the district council in February 2014, and the East Bergholt Neighbourhood Plan, made in September 2016. But the district council concluded that the five-year housing land supply required under government policy in paragraph 47 of the NPPF did not exist, so that, under the policy in paragraph 49, the policy for the "presumption in favour of sustainable development" in paragraph 14 was engaged and a decision to grant planning permission was justified. The thrust of the parish council's challenge is that the district council's approach to the assessment of housing land supply when it decided to grant planning permission for these three developments, was flawed by its misunderstanding of the concept of "deliverability" in the NPPF, wrongly equating it to "certainty" or even "absolute certainty" of delivery. A further complaint is that in approving these developments the district council was influenced by the potential cost of opposing subsequent appeals if it refused permission. These grounds were rejected by the judge. Permission to appeal was granted by Singh L.J. on 18 February 2019, on two of the four grounds in the appellant's notice – grounds 1 and 2. Sasha Blackmore acted for the Appellant (instructed by Teacher Stern LLP). The judgment can be found here.
