Mead Realisations Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2025] EWCA Civ 32
Mead Realisations is an important Court of Appeal authority on the flood-risk Sequential Test and on the legal relationship between the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance.
The appeal concerned up to 75 homes on land in Flood Zone 3a near Weston-super-Mare.
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
- [2025] EWCA Civ 32
- Court
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
- Judgment date
- 30th January 2025
- Judge
- Sir Keith Lindblom, Senior President of Tribunals, Newey LJ and Andrews LJ
- Case number
- CA-2024-000466
The NPPF and PPG can be read together
The Court rejected the idea that Planning Practice Guidance is legally inferior in a way that prevents it from explaining national policy in the NPPF. Both are forms of national planning policy or guidance issued by the Secretary of State, although they serve somewhat different functions.
The PPG can legitimately clarify or elucidate a broad NPPF policy. Its weight remains a matter for the planning decision-maker.
“Reasonably available” is an evaluative planning concept
The NPPF did not itself contain a rigid definition of a reasonably available site for the Sequential Test. The Court regarded the concept as broad and open-textured, leaving room for planning judgment.
The PPG could therefore properly explain that reasonably available sites are those in a suitable location with a reasonable prospect of being available at the time envisaged for the development.
Alternative sites need not be owned by the applicant
The Court upheld the Inspector’s use of the PPG, including its guidance that lower-risk sites need not be owned by the applicant. A series of smaller sites can also be considered where collectively they could accommodate the proposed development. They do not necessarily have to be contiguous.
A five-year housing land supply shortfall is not part of the Sequential Test
The PPG stated that absence of a five-year housing land supply was not relevant to the Sequential Test for an individual application. The Court accepted the guidance as a lawful explanation of how the NPPF policy operated.
Could the PPG actually amend the NPPF?
The Court did not need to decide that question because it held that the PPG merely clarified the NPPF in this case. But Sir Keith Lindblom went further and said that, as a matter of principle, there was no general rule of law preventing the Secretary of State from altering national planning policy through a Written Ministerial Statement or the PPG.
Why Mead matters
The judgment is now one of the key authorities to read when applying the flood-risk Sequential Test. It is also important more generally when arguments arise over whether the PPG merely explains national policy or impermissibly adds to it.
Policy-date warning: the precise NPPF paragraph numbers in the judgment reflected the versions then in force. The current NPPF and PPG should always be checked when applying the Sequential Test today.
Read the full Mead Realisations judgment
Planning Geek holds the approved Court of Appeal judgment in the protected case law library. Gold Members can open the PDF below.
Mead Realisations Case Law Page Updated: 11th September 2026