East Northamptonshire Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (CO/917/2020)

The East Northamptonshire housing land supply case ended with a consent order dated 7th May 2020, rather than a reasoned High Court judgment. Its importance lies in the Secretary of State’s concession, recorded in the order, that the National Planning Policy Framework definition of a deliverable housing site was not a closed list.

In plain English, a site could not be excluded simply because it fell outside the examples listed in the policy. It still had to satisfy the underlying delivery test on the evidence. That distinction matters when we assess whether homes can realistically contribute to a five-year housing land supply.

The public summary below explains the order and its limits. The complete consent order is available to Planning Geek Gold members through the protected download at the end. You can also browse our Planning Case Law Library.

What the Secretary of State conceded

Particular B records that the Secretary of State had reconsidered the Inspector’s decision alongside the council’s grounds of challenge and supporting evidence. He accepted that treating the NPPF glossary definition as exhaustive was an error.

The examples in categories (a) and (b) did not describe every possible category of deliverable site. The central test concerned present availability, suitability for development and achievability, with a realistic prospect of housing being delivered within five years.

The concession also expressly preserved the role of planning judgment. Particular B ends: “Whether a site does or does not meet the definition is a matter of planning judgment on the evidence available.”

We therefore need to keep two questions separate. First, does the policy allow this type of site to be considered? Second, does the evidence demonstrate that this particular site can deliver homes in the relevant period? Passing the first question does not answer the second.

Why the appeal decision was quashed

East Northamptonshire Council brought a statutory challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The proceedings concerned residential development at land west of The Willows in Thrapston and Lourett Developments Ltd was the interested party.

The underlying appeal was APP/G2815/W/19/3232099. The Secretary of State’s decisions dated 24th January 2020 had allowed the planning appeal and made a partial award of costs in the developer’s favour.

Following the concession, the parties agreed that both decisions should be quashed. The Planning Court’s consent order did so and remitted the appeal for determination de novo, meaning it was to be determined afresh. The order also required the Secretary of State to pay the council £8,616.66 in the costs of the court proceedings.

These are distinct outcomes. Quashing the partial appeal costs award removed that decision; the separate £8,616.66 payment concerned the court challenge. Nor did remitting the appeal mean that the court itself refused planning permission or decided the eventual planning merits.

What the case does not decide

• It does not make every site with outline permission deliverable automatically
• It does not turn a committee resolution to grant, subject to a section 106 agreement, into an issued planning permission
• It does not remove the need for convincing evidence of delivery within five years
• It does not establish a universal build-out rate or settle every disputed site in a supply calculation
• It is not a fully reasoned judicial precedent addressing every housing land supply issue

The order gives us a clear record of the accepted interpretation and the procedural outcome. It does not provide a judge’s detailed analysis of competing submissions. Describing it as a comprehensive High Court ruling on deliverability would overstate what the document contains.

East Northamptonshire housing land supply in practice

The practical examples here are our application of the recorded principle, rather than additional findings made by the court. For a five-year supply assessment, the useful exercise is to explain the route from a site’s present position to actual completions, rather than rely on its label.

Resolutions to grant: identify what remains outstanding before permission can be issued. For a section 106 agreement, that may include unresolved obligations, signing arrangements and dependencies affecting viability or timing. A positive committee decision is relevant evidence, but it does not make those remaining steps disappear.

Outline permissions: examine the reserved matters programme, discharge of conditions and developer’s intended start date. Distinguish a credible programme from a general expression of optimism. The number of homes counted should reflect likely completions during the assessment period, rather than the site’s entire capacity.

Allocations and emerging sites: explain the planning status, outstanding assessment work and realistic route to permission. An allocation can support suitability, but it cannot by itself prove that the land is available or that construction can proceed in time.

Ownership and developer interest: check whether the necessary land is controlled, whether an owner or developer intends to proceed and whether that intention is supported by specific, current information. A promoter’s interest and a housebuilder’s funded delivery programme are different forms of evidence.

Infrastructure and mitigation: identify critical access, utilities, drainage and environmental requirements, who will deliver them and when. If a prerequisite remains unresolved, explain its effect on the construction programme rather than assume it will be overcome.

Build-out evidence: test lead-in periods, annual completion rates, phasing and any reliance on multiple outlets. Comparable delivery experience can help, but the assumptions must fit the actual site and market. Counting homes accurately means assessing both when delivery can begin and how much can occur before the five-year period ends.

Why it still matters

National policy wording has changed since 2020. We should read the current NPPF glossary and the policy applicable to the particular decision, rather than treat this order as a substitute for today’s text.

The current glossary retains the central availability, suitability and realistic five-year delivery approach. It also distinguishes the evidence expectations for different planning statuses, including a clear-evidence requirement for major outline permissions, allocations, permission in principle and brownfield register sites.

The continuing lesson is to read policy examples in their proper context. They should not be treated as exhaustive unless the wording makes them exhaustive. Equally, an inclusive definition does not excuse weak evidence or override an express policy requirement.

That is why the order remains useful alongside contemporary reporting such as our Herefordshire housing land supply article. It helps frame the deliverability question; the current policy and evidence must then answer it.

Planning Geek can help assess housing land supply evidence and its implications for an application or appeal, coordinating specialist or legal input where needed. For a site-specific enquiry, request a planning quote.

Consent order and source

Court: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Planning Court. Case number: CO/917/2020. Order date: 7th May 2020. This entry uses the case number and describes the document as a consent order; it does not assign an unverified neutral citation.

The protected document is the complete four-page copy, including its blank final page. The summary is public; downloading the source requires Planning Geek Gold membership.

Page created: 3rd October 2026