Wilson Connolly Ltd., R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor

When applying the sequential approach to housing sites under PPG3, the decision-maker may take a broad view of housing shortfall and the realistic potential of preferable sites. It is unnecessary to identify every site or quantify the shortfall with precision where the evidence permits a rational overall assessment. A greenfield site allocated for housing need not be released immediately if sequentially preferable urban sites have sufficient potential to contribute towards meeting the likely deficit. The expression “available” in this context does not require immediate or definitive availability. The decision-maker’s reasons must explain the basis of the conclusion, but need not analyse the evidence site by site.

The claimant challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the First Secretary of State’s dismissal of an appeal concerning outline planning permission for housing on a 2.23 hectare greenfield site at Highworth, Swindon. The site was allocated for housing in the adopted local plan, but PPG3 required priority to previously developed urban land and then urban extensions.

The Inspector considered that the Borough faced a significant housing shortfall and recommended release of the site. The First Secretary of State accepted the likely shortfall but relied on additional sites identified in the Urban Capacity Study, concluding that immediate release was unnecessary and premature. The central issue was whether that approach was rational and adequately reasoned.

1. The application was dismissed. The First Secretary of State was entitled to conclude that the greenfield site need not be released at that time, ahead of sequentially preferable sites identified in the Urban Capacity Study.
2. There was nothing objectionable in principle in assessing the site under paragraph 38 of PPG3 by considering whether other urban capacity sites could contribute towards the likely housing deficit. The decision-maker did not need to identify all sites required to meet the deficit through 2011.
3. The Secretary of State was entitled to take a broad view of both shortfall and supply. The evidence showed a substantial potential supply in the Urban Capacity Study, which had been accepted as robust. The decision-maker was not required to conduct a site-by-site analysis or quantify the shortfall precisely.
4. A decision-maker is not legally required always to explain expressly why he differs from an Inspector. The essential requirement is that the reasons for the decision are clear. Here, the Secretary of State’s disagreement was apparent from his reliance on additional Urban Capacity Study sites.
5. “Available” did not require immediate or definitive availability. In this planning context it meant realistic potential availability over the relevant period. The five-year housing supply point was not part of the Secretary of State’s reasoning and required no further analysis.

An order for costs of £4,786 was made.