George Wimpey UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor

A planning decision-maker must address the material housing need found by an inspector. The extent of any shortfall affects the weight given to housing need, the operation of a plan, monitor and manage approach, and the availability of alternative previously developed land. A decision cannot rely on unspecified alternative sites while disregarding the inspector’s findings about their availability.

Whether land forms part of a building’s curtilage under PPG3 is a matter of planning evaluation based on primary facts, including physical relationship, historical association and past or current use. It is not necessarily a finding of fact requiring further representations under the inquiry rules.

The claimant challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the refusal of planning permission for 187 dwellings and associated works near Morpeth. The inspector had recommended permission, finding a substantial housing shortfall and concluding that relevant parts of the site were previously developed land because they fell within County Hall’s curtilage.

The Secretary of State disagreed, treating those areas as greenfield land. The challenge concerned housing supply and need, the meaning of curtilage under PPG3, compliance with rule 17(5) of the inquiry rules, and the assessment of open-space effects.

1. Claim allowed and decision quashed. The Secretary of State failed to address the inspector’s conclusion that there would be a substantial housing shortfall. The decision letter instead treated a shortfall of 34 dwellings as relevant and stated that insufficient land could not be concluded. Those conclusions were inconsistent with the inspector’s findings and inadequately reasoned.
2. The shortfall affected the weight given to housing need, the plan, monitor and manage approach, the significance of the absence of sequential ranking, and the quantity of alternative previously developed land required. The Secretary of State could not rationally rely on unspecified sites after the inspector had examined and rejected the relevant alternatives.
3. The other planning considerations were not freestanding reasons capable of saving the decision. The Secretary of State stated that the weight given to housing need was heavily dependent on whether the site was previously developed land.
4. There was no breach of rule 17(5) of the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000. The question whether land was within the curtilage of County Hall involved evaluating primary facts through a planning perspective. It was a question of fact and degree or planning judgment, not a procedural “matter of fact” requiring further representations.
5. The Secretary of State was entitled to weigh physical relationship, historical links, former recreational use, current informal recreation and planning-application boundaries differently from the inspector. His conclusion that Areas 2 and 3 were not previously developed land was lawful.
6. The open-space challenge failed. The Secretary of State was entitled to focus on the loss of existing open space and to proceed on the basis that informal recreation would continue absent evidence of an imminent threat.
7. Costs were awarded to the claimant on assessment. Indemnity costs were refused because the conduct did not meet the required high threshold.