Can the NPPF be amended by PPG?

The Court of Appeal considered the status of and relationship between Planning Practice Guidance (“PPG”) and the National Planning Policy Framework (the “NPPF”) in Mead Realisations Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government and another [2025] EWCA Civ 32 (“Mead”). The judgment can be found here.

Mead Realisations Ltd (“MRL”) submitted its claim for statutory review (pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) (the “Claim”) following the refusal by North Somerset Council, the local planning authority (the “LPA”), of planning permission for 75 dwellings in a high flood risk area which was then upheld at appeal by the Inspectorate. MRL argued that alternative sites suggested by the LPA were not “reasonably available” under Policy CS3 of the LPA’s core strategy.

The July 2021 version of the NPPF, extant at the time of the appeal decision, sets out the “sequential test” for flood risk at paragraph 162: “The aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding.” The current version of the NPPF (December 2024) sets out the test at paragraphs 174 and 175, which are not materially different from paragraph 162 of the July 2021 version.

There is no definition for “reasonably available” in the NPPF; however, paragraph 7-028 of the PPG (subsequently inserted in August 2022) does contain guidance on the sequential test including the concept of a “reasonably available” site. The Inspector, relying on the more recent guidance in the PPG, found that Policy CS3 was inconsistent with the NPPF and that the interpretation of paragraph 162 had been clarified by paragraph 7-028.

The Claim was heard by Holgate J in January 2024, together with a claim made by Redrow Homes (in which similar issues arose).

Upholding the Inspectorate’s decision, Holgate J held that PPG was a “proper aid to clarifying and understanding the meaning of the NPPF”, concluding (at paragraph 62 of his judgment) that the NPPF did “not have some special legal status” of its own and that (at paragraph 71) he was “unimpressed by the claimants' argument that PPG cannot be adopted which is "restrictive" of policy in the NPPF”. Holgate J held that it was not accurate to say PPG was “only guidance, as if to suggest that it has a different legal, as opposed to policy, status from the NPPF”.

Both claims were dismissed. Holgate J’s judgment can be found here. MRL appealed to the Court of Appeal (Redrow Homes did not).

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Holgate J on 30 January 2025 and found that policies in the NPPF and guidance in the PPG may be “used as an aid to the interpretation of each other”, and in this case PPG ‘clarified’ the relevant policy in the NPPF without amending it.

Significantly, the Court of Appeal commented that if PPG had amended policy (not just ‘clarified’), there was no legal principle to prevent that (see paragraphs 52 and 53 of the judgment). The Court of Appeal agreed with Holgate J's conclusions on the role of the NPPF and of the PPG, in that the “legal status of the Government's planning policies in the NPPF and its guidance in the PPG is basically the same” and “no legal distinction exists between them” because they are both “statements of national policy issued by the Secretary of State”. Accordingly, there is no legal justification to support the suggestion that PPG cannot be adopted which amends, or is inconsistent with, the NPPF. Both the guidance in the PPG and the policies in the NPPF were capable of being material considerations in decision-making, and the weight to be given to them is a matter for the decision-maker.

In conclusion, Mead has highlighted that the NPPF and PPG are of the same status and subsequent PPG can amend the NPPF. This ruling will be a particularly important consideration for planning authorities and developers once significant amendments to the PPG come forward shortly, as is the expectation.