In Wenman v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 925 (Admin), the claimant applied to quash the decision of an inspector on appeal refusing planning permission for “the use of land in the countryside for the stationing of caravans for the purposes of one gypsy pitch together with the formation of additional hardstanding and utility/dayroom ancillary to that use”.
In reaching that decision, the inspector concluded that the proposals conflicted, inter alia, with Policy C2 of the 2002 local plan. That stated as follows: “In the countryside beyond the green belt defined on the Proposals map and outside rural settlements identified in Policy RD1, the countryside will be protected for its own sake. Building in the open countryside away from existing settlements will be strictly controlled”.
It was common ground that the local planning authority could not demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing, with the consequence that paragraph 49 of the NPPF was engaged. This reads as follows: “Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.”
The claimant contended, in this respect, that the inspector had adopted a materially flawed approach to the application of the NPPF by not treating Policy C2 as a policy for the supply of housing within the meaning of the NPPF and accordingly disapplying it as required by paragraph 49. For the Secretary of State, it was argued that the claimant’s planning application was not “an application for housing” and – in the alternative – that Policy C2 was not a policy “for the supply of housing”.
The court upheld the claimant’s contention, and quashed the inspector’s decision. Section 6 of the NPPF – and in particular paragraph 49 – is intended to apply to all types of accommodation, i.e. mobile homes and caravans as well as bricks and mortar structures, provided they are to be used as homes. Applicants for planning permission for mobile homes or caravans, whether they be gypsies, travellers or others, are entitled in principle to rely on the failure of the local planning authority to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites in support of their application. Furthermore, earlier cases made it clear that policies for the supply of housing within paragraph 49 might either expressly address housing or be general policies restricting development, as in the present case.
John Martin
