Swale Borough Council v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government, Mr S Maughan and Others [2018] EWHC 3402 (Admin)

“5 In his decision, the inspector concisely reviewed a considerable amount of material, reaching a number of conclusions that are not challenged, in particular, the harm to the local character of the site, the fact that the development would be contrary to the local development plan, the loss of grade 1 agricultural land, and the fact that the individuals living there had intentionally promoted an unauthorised development. “

” Typically, however, the question for the decision-maker will not be simply whether or not a five-year supply of housing land has been demonstrated. If there is a shortfall, he will generally have to gauge, at least in broad terms, how large it is. No hard and fast rule applies.  ” from para 52 of
 Hallam Land Management Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Eastleigh Borough Council [2018] EWCA Civ 1808

para 22: test in PPTS (para 27 of policies):

“at paragraph 27 that, save in relation to certain designations of land:
“If a Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five-year supply of deliverable sites, this should be a significant material consideration in any subsequent planning decision when considering applications for the grant of temporary planning permission.”