Horsham District Council v First Secretary of State & Anor

When sustainability is a main issue in a planning appeal, an inspector must give intelligible reasons for accepting or rejecting the relevant considerations. If the inspector relies on the benefit of additional population to support local services, the reasoning must identify the services concerned and explain why the development would achieve that objective. The inspector must also address paragraph 70 of PPG3 where that policy underpins the sustainability argument. A conclusion that a development is acceptable because parking can be reduced cannot answer an objection that the location is unsustainable because public transport is inadequate and residents will depend on cars. Decision letters should be read as a whole and common-sense manner, but adequate reasoning remains essential on a main issue that affects other issues.

Horsham District Council applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash an inspector’s decision allowing Devine Homes plc’s appeal against the Council’s failure to determine a planning application within the prescribed period.

The application concerned the demolition of three dwellings and construction of 18 additional dwellings at Coldwaltham. The inspector treated sustainability as a main issue and granted permission subject to conditions, including reduced parking provision. The Council challenged the adequacy and rationality of the inspector’s reasoning concerning local services, paragraph 70 of PPG3, and the effect of the site’s limited public transport.

1. The application was allowed. The inspector’s decision was quashed. Sustainability was a main issue and the inspector’s conclusion on it also influenced the separate issue of the managed release of housing sites under PPG3.
2. The inspector broadly accepted that Coldwaltham was relatively remote, had few buses inconvenient for commuting, and lacked local employment. Against that background, the conclusion that the development would most likely achieve the objective of supporting local services and facilities required explanation. The inspector did not identify the services concerned or resolve the dispute between the Council’s description of limited services and the developer’s description of a good range of services.
3. The local school was specifically mentioned, but the inspector did not explain why it required support despite its reputation, full roll and wide catchment, or whether the alleged lack of pupils from Coldwaltham made it unsustainable.
4. Although paragraph 70 of PPG3 had not been specifically relied upon by the Council, it became relevant because the inspector accepted the developer’s argument that sustainability included maintaining or increasing population to support local services. The inspector should therefore have considered the policy’s requirements concerning significant additional housing, support for local services, and the possibility that services could become unviable without modest growth. It was unnecessary for the court to decide those matters itself.
5. The inspector also failed to grapple with the transport objection. The highway authority’s concern was that the high parking provision reflected an unsustainable location with inadequate public transport and little modal choice other than private cars. Reducing parking from two spaces per dwelling to 1.5 did not rationally answer that objection and risked leaving an unsustainable development with inadequate parking.
6. Decision letters must be read as a whole and without an unduly nitpicking approach. Nevertheless, the inspector had failed to address material parts of the sustainability case, so the decision was flawed. Costs were summarily assessed, with each defendant liable only for the specified several portion.

The judgment itself arose from an application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 challenging an inspector’s planning decision. The inspector had allowed Devine Homes plc’s appeal and granted planning permission subject to conditions. The Administrative Court allowed the application and quashed that decision.