In Hopkins Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Suffolk Coastal District Council  EWHC 132 (Admin) the principal issue was the application of paragraph 49 of NPPF, in the absence of a 5 year supply of housing, to “relevant policies for the supply of housing”. In William Davis  EWHC 3058 Mrs Justice Lang had confined the term to policies for the provision of housing, and held that it did not extend to a green wedge policy. In three subsequent cases – Cotswold, South Northamptonshire/Plummer, and South Northamptonshire/Barwood – it was held that the term related to policies that are relevant to, or constrain, the supply of housing.
In Hopkins, the Court followed the latter approach, specifically that of Ouseley J in Barwood, and quashed an Inspector’s decision which had proceeded on the William Davis basis.
The Court also found that the Inspector had failed to assess the significance of a (non-designated) heritage asset, in accordance with paragraph 135 of NPPF and the definition of “significance” in Annex 2.
Counsel for Hopkins Homes Ltd: Christopher Lockhart-Mummery QC.