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

Planning inspectors must engage with material evidence capable of affecting an earlier planning conclusion. Where later housing-supply guidance undermines the factual basis for a restraint policy, an inspector cannot simply adopt an earlier inspector’s reasoning without considering and explaining the effect of that guidance.

An inspector must also give reasons on a clearly raised alternative proposal, particularly where development on a brownfield site is said to substitute for an allocated greenfield site and deliver the same infrastructure benefits. Failure to address either matter may cause substantial prejudice and justify quashing the decision.

The claimant challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 an inspector’s dismissal of appeals concerning an industrial site in Gamesley, Derbyshire. The proposals sought outline permission for at least 30 dwellings and permission for 37 dwellings.

The inspector concluded that the proposals would worsen an existing housing oversupply and conflict with regional and local housing-restraint policies. The claimant relied on later interim housing-supply guidance, which indicated a shortfall by 2015, and argued that the brownfield appeal site could replace a nearby greenfield allocation intended to support transport infrastructure. The central issues were whether the inspector had properly considered those matters and given adequate reasons.

1. The claim succeeded. The inspector’s decision was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Secretary of State for reconsideration.
2. The Local Plan Inspector’s restraint-based reasoning had depended materially on the absence of reliable post-2011 housing figures and the likelihood of continuing oversupply. The later interim guidance indicated that, under either proposed methodology, there would instead be a housing shortfall by 2015. That was material evidence capable of affecting the earlier conclusion. The inspector therefore could not simply adopt the earlier reasoning without considering, and explaining, why the new material made no difference.
3. The claimant’s proposal that the brownfield site should substitute for the nearby greenfield site allocated under Local Plan policy H2 was a clearly raised and important issue. If the brownfield development could deliver the infrastructure benefits underlying H2, it might avoid an increase in the overall housing provision. The inspector gave no reasons for rejecting that approach.
4. The court rejected the suggestion that the inspector was required to invent points for the parties. The relevant implications were apparent from the evidence and submissions, and the inspector had to address them. It was also open to the inspector to indicate what infrastructure or planning-obligation arrangements would have been sufficient, and whether those arrangements could outweigh the restraint policy.
5. These failures deprived the claimant of a proper understanding of why the proposals were rejected and caused substantial prejudice. The precise amount of any proposed section 106 contribution was not determinative.

The claim arose from an inspector’s decision dated 15 December 2005 dismissing appeals against the local planning authority’s failure to determine one application and refusal of another. The High Court quashed the decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration.