North Wiltshire District Council, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

In a planning appeal, conflict with the development plan does not prevent a decision-maker from considering a need for affordable housing as a material consideration, even where that need was addressed during the plan-making process. The question is whether the material considerations indicate that permission should nevertheless be granted. An inspector’s reasons need address the principal controversial issues and explain the result, but need not discuss every consideration or reproduce national policy where the development plan reflects it. The High Court reviews legality and adequacy of reasoning, not the planning merits. Generalised concerns about precedent may be dealt with briefly where no specific evidential case is advanced.

Chippenham Motors Ltd appealed under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against refusal of outline permission for affordable housing on previously developed land near Chippenham. The Inspector allowed the appeal, notwithstanding that the site was outside a defined settlement and contrary to relevant development plan policies.

North Wiltshire District Council challenged the Inspector’s decision under section 288 of the Act. It alleged unlawful treatment of the development plan and material considerations, inadequate reasoning, failure to consider national policy, inadequate treatment of precedent, and perversity. The central issues were whether the Inspector had correctly applied the statutory planning balance and whether his decision letter gave adequate and intelligible reasons.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Inspector had correctly identified that the site lay in the open countryside and that the rural exception policies did not support the proposal. The conclusion that the proposal was contrary to the development plan was sufficiently clear when the decision letter was read as a whole.
2. Under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Inspector was entitled to consider whether other material considerations outweighed the conflict with the development plan. The need for affordable housing remained a material consideration even though the need had been considered during the development plan process. That circumstance might affect the weight given to the need, but did not remove its materiality.
3. The Inspector’s reasons were adequate under the approach stated by Lord Brown in South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953. Reasons must enable the reader to understand the outcome and how the principal controversial issues were resolved. They need not address every material consideration or set out national policy separately where the development plan reflects it.
4. The Inspector’s treatment of precedent was brief but legally sufficient because the Council had advanced only generalised concerns and identified no particular areas said to be threatened. The High Court was not concerned with the merits of the planning judgment. The decision was neither irrational nor perverse, and the language, though capable of improvement, left no substantial doubt about the reasons for the result.
5. Costs were awarded to the Secretary of State in the sum of £4,900.03.

• Inspector: On 17 May 2006, the Inspector allowed Chippenham Motors Ltd’s section 78 appeal and granted outline planning permission subject to conditions.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was dismissed, with costs awarded to the Secretary of State.