The 2012 NPPF: A Digest of Decisions

Section 4 – Promoting sustainable transport

NPPF 29-41

NPPF 32

Redhill Aerodrome Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1386, Sullivan, Tomlinson, Lewison LJJ
James Maurici KC appeared for the First Appellant Secretary of State
Stephen Whale appeared on behalf of the Second and Third Appellant Councils
Christopher Katkowski KC and Alistair Mills appeared on behalf of the Respondent, Redhill Aerodrome

“It does not follow from the (new) policy that permission should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of a development are severe, that when considering whether permission for inappropriate development in the Green Belt should be granted, an adverse residual cumulative transport impact of that development that is less than severe should be ignored when an Inspector is deciding whether “the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm”, is clearly outweighed by “other considerations”, which would include any beneficial transport considerations, eg an offer to provide a bus service to the development, or to fund the construction of a new railway station.” [28]

NPPF 35

Eastleigh BC [2019] EWHC 1862 (Admin), Garnham J
Leon Glenister appeared for the Secretary of State
Christopher Boyle KC and Andrew Parkinson appeared for the Second and Third Defendant

“34. …the focus of paragraph 35 of the NPPF is on providing opportunities for sustainable modes of transport, such as walking. Whilst it is undeniably the case that a development would not properly be regarding as “well served” by a walking route that was unsafe (and the contrary was not suggested before me), and that it is implicit in paragraph 35 that the opportunities to be provided are opportunities for a safe mode of transport, there is nothing, express or implied, in either policy that requires every possible route from the development to be safe. What matters is whether there was a safe route, and there was.”