Development — Refusal of planning permission — Sufficient land identified to meet local housing requirements — Test determining need for housing development — Inspector applying test of overriding need — Whether inspector applying correct test — Application allowed
The claimant applied for planning permission for a development that involved the demolition of an existing building and the erection of 25 one-bedroom and 13 two-bedroom category II sheltered flats for the elderly, together with a housing manager’s accommodation, landscaping and car parking.
It was common ground that the appeal site lay within a conservation area and outside the north west metropolitan area (NWMA), as defined in regional planning guidance (RPG 13). This sought to concentrate housing development within the NWMA and restrict it elsewhere within the north-west region.
The second defendant council refused planning permission on the sole ground that sufficient land had been identified to meet local housing requirements for the next 10 years. The claimant appealed, pursuant to section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Following an inquiry, the inspector appointed by the first defendant dismissed the appeal. He concluded that the proposed development would result in an oversupply of housing outside the NWMA. Furthermore, no overriding need for accommodation for the elderly on the site, sufficient to overcome the very restrictive housing policies that RPG 13 had introduced, had been demonstrated.
The claimant applied to set aside that decision under section 288 of the 1990 Act, contending, inter alia, that the inspector had erred in law by incorrectly identifying the test for housing need in the location of the appeal site as being a requirement to demonstrate “an overriding need”.
Held: The application was allowed.
The inspector had wrongly applied a test that was more restrictive than that found in RPG 13 and had therefore misinterpreted, and/or had failed to have regard to, the relevant planning policy.
The inspector’s approach was inconsistent with the proper test, set out in para 3.18 of RPG 13, namely, whether the development had met the needs of the area’s current population and its housing needs.
Christopher Katkowski QC and David Blundell (instructed by Turners Solicitors LLP, of Bournemouth) appeared for the claimant; Mark Beard (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; the second defendants, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council, did not appear and were not represented.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
