Under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – the government’s primary planning policy – there is a requirement (found in paragraph 85, formerly 81) that “significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity.” One recent ruling illustrates how this plays out in decision-making.
A closer look at the Bewley Homes case
In Bewley Homes plc vs SSLUHC, Bewley Homes sought planning permission for 140 homes. Their application was refused, with the appeal inspector awarding only “moderate weight” to the scheme’s economic benefits. Bewley argued that the inspector had misinterpreted the NPPF by failing to grant all economic benefits “significant weight.”
The court rejected Bewley’s claim, clarifying that paragraph 81 of the NPPF does not mandate a blanket assignment of “significant weight” to all economic benefits arising from any development proposal. Instead, it emphasised that “significant weight” applies to the overarching objective of supporting economic growth and productivity rather than the specific economic benefits of any single development. The court noted that economic benefits vary significantly between projects, and accordingly, the weight given to these benefits should vary based on each case’s merits.
The court also found that Bewley provided no detailed evidence of the specific economic benefits expected from their development, relying instead on generalised statements. It clarified that while the NPPF supports economic growth, it does not require decision-makers to assign “significant weight” to economic benefits without clear evidence of their scale or impact. The court pointed out that paragraph 81 primarily focuses on business investment, expansion, and adaptation rather than general economic benefits from residential developments.
Ultimately, the court’s decision confirmed that planning decision-makers retain the discretion to consider the nature and degree of economic benefits arising from a development proposal and to assign weight to those benefits as they consider appropriate within the overall planning balance. This judgment is helpful to clarify that the NPPF does not require a uniform application of “significant weight” to all types of economic benefits.
Key takeaways
- Understand ‘significant weight’ in context
“Significant weight” applies specifically to the policy objective of supporting growth and productivity, not universally to all economic benefits. Providing detailed, context-specific evidence is essential. - Provide robust evidence
Projects with general or vague claims – such as merely stating “more jobs” without specific numbers or context – are unlikely to persuade decision-makers. Robust evidence on the economic impacts is required to substantiate the planning benefit. - Explain the local context
Clearly demonstrate how your project addresses local challenges or enhances existing economic clusters. Highlight connections to industries in need of investment or emerging sectors identified in local or national strategies. - Quantify impacts in a meaningful way
Instead of quoting large sums, such as an additional £12 million in local spending, illustrate the impact as a meaningful percentage increase – for example, a 3.4% rise in town-centre spending – to clarify the proposal’s relative economic impact. - Optimising benefits
Beyond direct job creation, think about community infrastructure, how the homes or commercial space can best meet local needs, or what s106 commitments can be signed up to boost skills and local jobs. Offering a broader package of benefits not only meets local council priorities but also strengthens your overall case.
Why this matters
This court decision underlines how essential it is for developers, planners, and stakeholders to present well-documented, locally relevant economic assessments. Simply stating that a project will bring “economic benefits” is not enough. Clearly articulating how a development boosts local productivity and growth helps align proposals with both the spirit and letter of national policy.
