High Court considers NPPF paras. 115-116

The High Court (Coppel J) has handed down judgment in Greystoke CB Ltd v SSHCLG [2026] EWHC 1997 (Admin) on the requirements of the NPPF para. 116 test.

The case concerned a planning appeal in which the Inspector concluded that the scheme's residual traffic impacts were not severe but were nonetheless significant and unmitigated, resulting in a breach of NPPF para. 115(d). In weighing a number of factors in the planning balance, including the significant weight he attached to economic benefits, the Inspector attached significant weight to that traffic impact and regarded it as the most weighty reason for dismissing the appeal.

The High Court said it was unlawful to do so. NPPF para. 116 requires that, at planning balance stage, the Inspector had to ask himself whether he was refusing on highways grounds, and then grapple with the bar set by NPPF para. 116.

David Elvin KC acted for the Claimant.

Richard Moules KC and Nick Grant for the Secretary of State.

Click here to view the judgment