Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government v BDW Trading Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 493
BDW Trading is a leading Court of Appeal authority on section 38(6) and the statutory priority of the development plan. It is reported at [2017] PTSR 1337.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2016] EWCA Civ 493; [2017] PTSR 1337
- Court
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
- Judgment date
- 27th May 2016
- Judge
- The Master of the Rolls, Macur LJ and Lindblom LJ
- Case number
- C1/2015/1428
Section 38(6) is at the heart of the plan-led system
The Court of Appeal confirmed that the decision-maker must determine whether the proposal accords with the development plan as a whole. The duty cannot be discharged merely by identifying individual policy conflicts without reaching the necessary overall conclusion.
Equally, section 38(6) does not require a mechanical counting exercise. A proposal can conflict with the development plan as a whole because it conflicts with a single policy that is central to the plan’s strategy, even though it complies with or receives general support from other policies.
No rigid two-stage exercise is required
Section 38(6) does not dictate a fixed decision-making formula. What matters is that the development plan receives its statutory priority and that all other material considerations are then weighed lawfully.
National policy such as the NPPF is a material consideration. It does not displace or modify the statutory status of the development plan.
Why BDW Trading matters
The case is particularly useful when an officer, Inspector or other decision-maker discusses several development-plan policies but fails to make clear whether the proposal complies with the plan viewed as a whole.
Read the judgment
The full Court of Appeal judgment is available from BAILII: Secretary of State v BDW Trading Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 493.
Planning Geek also holds the full judgment in the protected case law library. Gold Members can open it below.
BDW Trading Case Law Page Updated: 11th September 2026