Abstract
This analysis explores new developments in judicial review of planning policy interpretation. It shows how the nature of policy, often contextual and judgment-dependent, has led the UK Supreme Court to rethink the standard of review applicable to this issue. By considering the recent decision in Samuel Smith as part of a trilogy of cases—including Tesco Stores and Hopkins Homes—this analysis reveals a change in judicial attitudes, away from the expansive judicial supervision upheld in Tesco Stores. Furthermore, this study reflects on how this change is related to two wider ideas. The first is the Court’s understanding of the law and policy divide in the planning field, whilst the second is to do with a pragmatic stance regarding the purpose of the planning system and the institutional role of the courts in it. Finally, this analysis shows how the new approach emphasises the distinctive character of policy in the planning context.