Barratt Homes (Southern Counties) Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions & Anor

In a planning decision, reasons for rejecting an inspector’s recommendation are adequate where the decision letter, read as a whole and in light of the applicable policy, clearly explains the decision-maker’s methodology and conclusion. Under the plan, monitor and manage approach, housing land supply may be assessed through continuing monitoring rather than predictions based principally on past completion rates. It may therefore be premature to release additional greenfield land merely because delivery at identified sites is uncertain. Acceptance of the broad level of projected supply is not irrational if the figures remain subject to monitoring. An apparently inconsistent sentence should not be considered in isolation from the decision letter as a whole.

The applicant brought a statutory challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the Secretary of State’s refusal of planning permission for 290 dwellings and associated development. A planning inspector had recommended permission after finding a predicted shortfall in the district’s five-year housing land supply. The Secretary of State rejected that recommendation, relying on PPG3 Housing and the need to monitor actual housing delivery rather than release further greenfield land prematurely. Mr George Bartlett QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, decided against the applicant. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers, leading to this renewed application. The central issues were whether the Secretary of State had given adequate reasons and whether his conclusion was irrational.

The Court of Appeal unanimously refused the renewed application for permission to appeal.

1. Adequacy of reasons. The Secretary of State’s reasons were sufficiently clear when read in the context of his policy. His criticism of reliance on past completion rates expressed a wider methodological objection. Under PPG3 Housing, the relevant approach had moved from predict and provide to plan, monitor and manage. Housing requirements and delivery were to be kept under regular review, with actual take-up monitored.
2. That reasoning applied to all four disputed sites. The Secretary of State was not shown to have misunderstood the inspector’s reasoning or to have overlooked the other adjustments made to the housing figures. The absence of a precise timetable for reviewing the local plan did not make the reasons inadequate. The Secretary of State’s position was that supply and development rates should be monitored as events occurred.
3. Irrationality. The apparent tension between rejecting prediction based on past completion rates and accepting the broad level of the council’s projected supply figures did not establish irrationality. The figures could be accepted at a broad level while remaining subject to monitoring. The decision letter had to be read as a whole rather than scrutinised sentence by sentence. Its main thrust was clear and rational.
4. Lord Justice Buxton agreed with Lord Justice Keene and added that the Secretary of State was entitled to rely on the policy and methodology in PPG3 Housing. The application was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): renewed application for permission to appeal refused, [2002] EWCA Civ 1578.
2. High Court: Mr George Bartlett QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, decided against the applicant in the challenge to the Secretary of State’s planning decision. The citation was not stated in the judgment.