Redrow Homes (Eastern) Ltd. v First Secretary of State

Under Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing, the presumption favouring previously developed land does not require refusal of every greenfield proposal while brownfield land remains available. Nor does an apparent housing-land shortfall require permission for a greenfield site. The decision-maker must make a balanced assessment of the relevant guidance, including development-plan requirements, alternative sites, housing need, sustainability, infrastructure and development management. Minor factual errors will not justify quashing a decision unless they could have affected the outcome.

The claimant applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash an inspector’s decision dismissing its appeal against refusal of outline planning permission for residential development, open-space extension and land raising at Danley Farm, Isle of Sheppey.

The site was a greenfield site allocated for housing in the Swale Borough Local Plan. The inspector concluded that its release conflicted with the brownfield-first advice in PPG3 and would erode openness between Halfway and Minster. The claimant alleged errors in applying PPG3, section 54A of the Act and assessing openness.

1. Application dismissed. The inspector’s decision was not unlawful. Costs were summarily assessed at £6,000.
2. Section 54A required the development plan to be the starting point, with other material considerations weighed against it. The inspector understood that framework and identified the relevant Local Plan conflicts.
3. PPG3 paragraphs 32, 34 and 38 had to be read together. Paragraph 32 did not prohibit greenfield development whenever developable brownfield land existed. Paragraph 34 did not compel permission whenever a five-year brownfield supply could not be identified. The decision-maker had to balance the brownfield presumption against development-plan requirements and other relevant factors.
4. The inspector considered the Urban Capacity Study, paragraph 31 criteria, housing shortfall, local need, employment, sustainability, infrastructure and the Local Plan Review. He was entitled to conclude that immediate development would mainly serve commuters and could impede the release of more sustainable urban sites.
5. The assessment of the housing/open-space boundary was a matter of planning judgment. The alleged errors concerning Field VI, the word “trend”, windfall calculations and affordable housing could not have affected the result.

The inspector dismissed the claimant’s planning appeal against refusal of permission. The claimant then brought this section 288 application in the Administrative Court. The application was dismissed.