Developer appealing against defendant council’s failure to determine application for planning permission for affordable housing – Inspector considering development policies and dismissing appeal – Claimant seeking to quash inspector’s decision – Whether inspector erred in elevating racehorse training policies over housing policies – Claim dismissed
Harwoods Property Ltd (H) applied to the second defendant district council for outline planning permission and conservation area consent for the redevelopment of Bourne House Stables, Lambourn (the site). The development scheme proposed 21 units of affordable housing, plus associated roads, footpaths, parking and landscaping. The council failed to determine the application within the prescribed period and H appealed.
The inspector described the development plan as including the Newbury District Local Plan (LP) and the Berkshire Structure Plan. He also found that the emerging deposit draft local plan (ELP) was “up to date” and had “reached such an advanced stage in the statutory process” that “its policies should be given considerable weight”. He dealt with policies in the extant LP and the ELP relating to the racehorse industry, and stated that “because of the prescriptive nature of these policies… they are the starting point when considering the requirements set out in section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990”. He also considered policies regarding the provision of affordable housing and found that the “extant and emerging development plan encouraged such housing in rural areas but not at the expense of existing racehorse training and breeding yards”. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal.
The claimant, Racepeak Ltd, sought to quash the inspector’s decision, pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on the grounds, inter alia, that: (i) the inspector had misdirected himself in elevating racehorse policies above housing policies in the emerging and extant plans; and (ii) the inspector had misapplied section 54A of the Act. The claimant contended that the section 54A requirement to determine the appeal in accordance with the development plan (unless material considerations indicated otherwise) applied to the plan as a whole. The inspector should have assessed all parts of the plan; both those supporting the proposal, and those pointing the other way. The inspector had erred by finding that the housing policies were relevant but then consigning them to the category of “other material considerations”.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
1. Interpretation of policy was primarily for the decision maker. The claimant’s approach treated the wording of the policies in a legalistic way and divorced them from their planning context.
2. The inspector exercised his planning judgment, and interpreted the policies against the background of the racing industry in Lambourn. Not only was he entitled to conclude that the overall effect of the affordable housing policies was to ‘encourage such housing… but not at the expense of existing racehorse training” but was plainly right to do so.
3. That the inspector referred to the housing policies under the heading of “other material considerations” was insignificant. It could not be said that he disregarded those policies. He relegated them because he regarded them as subordinate, not because he failed to treat them as part of the development plan.
Morag Ellis (instructed by Ashley Wilson) appeared for the claimant; James Maurici (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; Peter Harrison (instructed by the Solicitor to West Berkshire District Council) appeared for the second defendant.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
