Landmark Chambers

Home > Resources > The NPPF: A Digest of Decisions > Section 8 – Promoting healthy communities

Section 8 – Promoting healthy communities

NPPF 69-78


Turner [2015] EWHC 375 (Admin), Collins J

Dan Kolinsky appeared for the Secretary of State

Tim Corner QC and Paul Brown QC appeared for the Third Defendant

“The claimant submits that the natural and so correct meaning of paragraph 74 requires any development to provide open space which is at least equivalent to that lost both in quantity and quality. It is not a correct interpretation to allow a smaller quantity because of enhanced quality. The claimant has referred to observations of a MP who was making particular reference to allotments saying that it meant that open spaces were not to be lost. However, I think that that is an over mechanistic approach. No doubt when spaces are fully used such as allotments or playing fields or entirely accessible recreation areas it will be difficult if not impossible to justify a loss of quantity. But it is in my view appropriate in a case such as this to consider the reality which is that the existing spaces were largely unused by the general public. The requirement in such circumstances for equivalent quantity is too restrictive and would, if applied to the letter, prevent sensible development when in reality there has been no overall loss. Accordingly, I do not think the inspector erred in dealing with open space.” [37]


NPPF 73-74


R (Loader) v Rother DC [2016] EWCA Civ 795, Laws, King, Lindblom LJJ

Neil Cameron QC appeared for the Second Respondent

“Both [local policy CF2 and NPPF 74] refer to an “assessment”. But neither prescribes what form that “assessment” must take. This will depend on the circumstances of the case in hand. Both policies hold the concept of a facility being “surplus to requirements”. Whether this is so will call for the exercise of planning judgment, with which the court will interfere only on public law grounds… The crucial question for the decision-maker, under both policies, is not how the “assessment” has been undertaken or in what form it has been presented, but whether it has clearly been shown that the facility is “surplus to the requirements of the community which is serves” (under Policy CF2), and thus “surplus to requirements” (under paragraph 74 of the NPPF).” [20]

“The three tests in paragraph 74 of the NPPF are disjunctive. The policy can be complied with if only one of them is satisfied.” [22]