Persimmon Homes (North West) Ltd. & Ors v The First Secretary of State & Anor

On a challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the court reviews legality, rationality and adequacy of reasons, but does not rehear planning merits. The weight given to material considerations is for the inspector. Reasons must address the principal controversial issues sufficiently to show how the decision was reached. An inspector may treat projected housing over-supply during the plan period, rather than only the position at its end, as relevant to the management and release of housing land. Local regeneration benefits need not prevail over district-wide housing supply considerations where the development plan requires annualised provision to be managed closely.

The claimants applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash an inspector’s dismissal of their appeal against refusal of planning permission for 56 dwellings on a derelict former employment site in Skelmersdale.

The inspector had accepted the scheme’s regeneration and local environmental benefits but concluded that it would aggravate an existing housing land over-supply and undermine the proper management and release of housing land. The principal issues were whether the inspector had misstated the housing calculations, failed to consider the separate Skelmersdale housing requirement, or gave inadequate reasons for preferring district-wide supply considerations.

1. The claim was dismissed. The inspector’s decision was not unlawful under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. The applicable principles were those stated in Ashbridge Investments Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1965] 1 WLR 1320. The court could intervene for error of law, irrationality, reliance on irrelevant matters, failure to consider relevant matters, or absence of evidential support. It could not substitute its own planning judgment.
3. Reasons had to be intelligible and adequate, addressing the substantial points raised: Re Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration [1964] 2 QB 467, Bolton MBC v Secretary of State for the Environment (1990) 61 P and C R 34 and South Bucks District Council v Porter (No. 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953. The inspector’s reasons sufficiently explained why projected over-supply outweighed the scheme’s benefits.
4. Planning merits remained within the inspector’s exclusive province, and the weight given to a material consideration was for the decision-maker: R (Newsmith Stainless Ltd.) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions [2001] EWHC Admin 74 and Tesco Stores Ltd. v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] 1 WLR 759.
5. The inspector was entitled to assess housing supply across the trajectory of the structure plan period. The relevant policies emphasised meeting annual requirements as closely as possible. The projected excess before the final two years was therefore a sufficient basis for treating the proposal as inconsistent with proper housing land management, notwithstanding uncertainty about the Whalleys site.
6. There was no legal requirement to give the separate Skelmersdale target of at least 850 dwellings priority over the district-wide target of 3,390. The inspector had considered regeneration benefits and was entitled to conclude that they were outweighed by the district-wide over-supply.

The planning application was refused by West Lancashire District Council. An appeal was heard by an inspector appointed by the First Secretary of State, who dismissed it by decision letter dated 6 January 2006. The present court dismissed the statutory challenge to that decision.