Landmark Chambers

Home > Resources > The NPPF: A Digest of Decisions > Section 1 – Building a strong, competitive economy

Section 1 – Building a strong, competitive economy

NPPF 18-22

 

NPPF 19

R (Tesco Stores Ltd) v Forest of Dean District Council [2014] EWHC 3348 (Admin), Patterson J

Patrick Clarkson QC and Gwion Lewis appeared for the Claimant

Graeme Keen appeared as junior counsel for the Second and Third Interested Parties

The planning purpose of supporting economic growth is supported by NPPF 19 [87]

 

NPPF 22

DB Schenker Rail (UK) v Leeds City Council [2013] EWHC 2865 (Admin), HHJ Belcher

Reuben Taylor appeared for the Claimant

John Hobson QC appeared for the Defendant

“NPPF 22 read as a whole clearly covers both the need to prevent long term protection of sites where there is no reasonable prospect of the allocated use coming forwards and the need for applications for alternative uses to be assessed where there is no reasonable prospect of the allocated use coming forward.” [54]

 

San Investments Ltd [2016] EWHC 2830 (Admin), Green J

“Ms Candlin appearing for the Secretary of State pointed out that there was a well-worn dichotomy at the heart of the planning system which distinguished between ordinary decisions taken in respect of planning applications and decisions against allocations in Plans requiring that land be used in a specific or a particular way. She said that this conclusion flowed out of paragraph [22] itself which encouraged the planning authorities to perform regular reviews of the allocation which encouragement only made sense in the context of a prior allocation exercise.” [28]

“In my view Ms Candlin is correct. The concept of allocation, although not a defined term of art, is one which has a particular meaning when understood in the context of the Framework. It is referring to the process of prior determination or designation of uses “ allocated ” to sites specifically included within the development plans. And the site in issue in the present case was not so. Accordingly paragraph [22] does not apply.” [30]