The role and relationship of NPPF and PPG

The Court of Appeal has provided guidance on flood risk policy and guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”) and Planning Practice Guidance (“PPG”), and the role and relationship of the NPPF and PPG more generally, writes Hugh Flanagan.

The judgment in Mead Realisations Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2025] EWCA Civ 32is likely to be of interest to all those dealing with national planning policy and guidance.

The case concerned an Inspector’s refusal of planning permission for 75 dwellings on the grounds of flood risk. The promoter challenged the refusal in the High Court on the basis that the Inspector had misinterpreted planning policy The judgment is likely to be of interest to all those dealing with national planning policy and guidance on the flood risk sequential test. The challenge was dismissed by Holgate J (as he then was).

The Court of Appeal (Sir Keith Lindblom Senior President of Tribunals, Newey and Andrews LJJ) upheld the High Court’s decision, finding that guidance in the PPG on the sequential test was consistent with policy in the NPPF. It did not exceed the ambit of the policy in the NPPF but rather explained how the policy is meant to operate, in particular what constitutes a ‘reasonably available site’ for the purpose of the sequential test.

The Court also went further and found that, in any event, there was no legal principle that prevents national policy in the NPPF being amended, or altered, by the PPG. The Court explained that the legal status of the NPPF and the PPG is essentially the same; no legal distinction exists between them. Both are statements of national policy issued by the Secretary of State exercising his general power to do so as minister with overall responsibility for the planning system. They have somewhat different purposes: the NPPF “is a comprehensive framework of national planning policy, in which the Government sets out its general policies for planning decision-taking and plan preparation”, whereas the PPG “is national guidance for planning practice, which can reinforce that framework” [34]. It is not right, however, to describe the PPG as being, in a legal sense, wholly subservient or subordinate to the NPPF in a hierarchy of national planning policy. Policies in the NPPF and guidance in the PPG may be used as an aid to interpretation of each other. The publication of the PPG does not need to be contemporaneous with the NPPF in order to explain its intention. Together the NPPF and PPG “form a mature body of planning policy and guidance” [34].

On the facts, the Inspector correctly understood policy and guidance and his application of it to the proposed development was lawful.

Hugh Flanagan is a barrister at Francis Taylor Building. He acted for the Secretary of State in the Court of Appeal and the High Court, instructed by the Government Legal Department.