Milton Keynes-based homebuilder Paul Newman New Homes has had a proposed 50-home development in Soulbury, Buckinghamshire, blocked by the Court of Appeal.
The homebuilder was challenging a planning inspector and a High Court judge’s interpretation of the “presumption in favour of sustainable development”, which is often referred to as the “golden thread” that runs though modern planning decisions.
“The central issue of this appeal,” said Lady Justice Andrews in the ruling, handed down today, “is whether an experienced planning inspector and a specialist planning judge… correctly interpreted” the rules.
According to the council, the planned development would urbanise the underdeveloped and rural nature of the entrance to the village. The planning inspector said it was a “greenfield site, which would result in an intrusion into open countryside”.
The inspector said that it wasn’t compliant with a “policy GP.35” of the up-to-date Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan, which relates to the site and surroundings.
As the council could demonstrate that it had a five-year supply of housing, the inspector decided, on balance, not to recommend the development for outline planning permission.
The homebuilder appealed to the High Court arguing that the inspector had misinterpreted the “presumption in favour of sustainable development” rule and that, among other things, policy GP.35 shouldn’t be considered at this point in the planing process.
The High Court judge, Sir Duncan Ouseley, disagreed and backed the planning officer. As did the Court of Appeal, in a ruling today.
Lady Justice Andrews said in her ruling that there is “nothing inherently unfair” for an experienced planning inspector to carry out a “balancing exercise” if “there is a policy in the development plan that is relevant, important and up to date”.
Paul Newman New Homes Limited v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and
Aylesbury Vale District Council
Christopher Lockhart-Mummery QC and Yaaser Vanderman (instructed by EMW Law) for the appellant; Guy Williams (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the respondent
