Cheshire East Council is seeking permission from the Supreme Court to appeal the Court of Appeal's Judgment in Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Limited and SSCL and Richborough Estates Partnership LLP v Cheshire East Borough Council  EWCA Civ 168
The Judgment, which was issued in March, clarified the proper interpretation of the meaning of 'relevant policies for the supply of housing' in paragraph 49 of the NPPF.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the term was wider than policies simply dealing with housing numbers or allocation sites.
Instead the Judgment expressly stated that the terms should apply to 'relevant policies affecting the supply of housing' which could include local plan policies on development in the green belt, areas of outstanding natural beauty or national parks, as well as those governing where homes should be build and how many are needed.
The Court of Appeal refused permission to proceed to the Supreme Court when the Judgment was issued.
It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court takes a similar view.
Judges at the Court of Appeal ruled that the NPPF policy would extend to plan policies that restrict locations for housing, including policies for the green belt, the general protection of the countryside, and for conserving the landscape of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks. Cheshire East Council said it is spearheading a "leave to appeal" to challenge the Court of Appeal ruling. ... The council said its Supreme Court legal challenge is a joint action with Suffolk Coastal District Council. ... Paul Campbell, co-managing director at Richborough Estates, said: "It is disappointing that Cheshire East Council and Suffolk Coastal have decided to seek permission to appeal from the Supreme Court, especially as they served the notice on the last day and the Court of Appeal had already refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.