Cala Homes (South) Ltd, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor

A planning decision-maker may moderate or replace an earlier policy approach before deciding an application, provided the updated approach is rational, fairly made known and taken into account. An earlier indication that specified failures would automatically trigger release of reserve housing did not create a continuing legitimate expectation where a later, more flexible action plan was approved and relied upon.

Assessment of housing supply and the weight given to competing technical assessments are matters of planning judgment. On a challenge under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 288, the court must not re-argue issues of planning expertise where the decision-maker has relied on rational reasons and adequate evidence.

Cala Homes challenged the Secretary of State’s dismissal of its appeal against Winchester City Council’s failure to determine an application for permission for a large residential development at Barton Farm, Winchester. The appeal concerned whether there was a compelling justification to release reserve housing land under Hampshire Structure Plan Policy H4.

The claimant alleged that the Secretary of State had failed to follow an earlier ministerial policy requiring missed action-plan milestones automatically to trigger release of reserve sites. It also challenged the rejection of its assessment of future housing supply. The central questions were whether the decision was unlawful through legitimate expectation, irrationality or inadequate reasons, and whether the Inspector had lawfully preferred the County Council’s housing-supply assessment.

1. The application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was dismissed. The claimant was ordered to pay the First Defendant’s costs, summarily assessed at £9,060.
2. The ministerial letter of 9 March 2004 described what was then required in an action plan. The action plan subsequently submitted for approval adopted a less prescriptive and more flexible approach. It did not provide that failure to meet any individual outcome action would automatically trigger release of reserve housing.
3. The Minister approved that action plan in June 2004. In March 2005 he made a planning judgment, on the updated information, that release of reserve sites was unnecessary. That conclusion was rational. The Secretary of State was entitled to moderate the earlier approach, and there was no unfairness or breach of legitimate expectation because the later approach was known to the parties and was fully ventilated at the inquiry.
4. By the date of the decision letter, eleven months had passed since the March 2005 ministerial view. The Secretary of State was entitled to give it limited weight and to rely on more recent evidence obtained at the inquiry.
5. The Inspector was entitled to prefer the County Council’s housing-supply assessment. The claimant’s reassessment was treated as incomplete and as using a common base date inadequately. Those were rational reasons for preferring the County Council’s figures. The choice between competing assessments was pre-eminently a matter of planning judgment.
6. The court was not the proper forum for resolving a disputed issue of planning expertise or for re-arguing the merits of the housing-supply assessment. The decision letter was entitled to adopt the Inspector’s reasoning, and there was no error of law warranting quashing.