Taylor Wimpey UK, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government

In a challenge to a planning refusal, the decision-maker must assess housing need accurately and must not treat a finely balanced evidential issue as resolved by flawed assumptions or omissions. Where the need assessment is flawed, conclusions about conflict with development-plan policies cannot stand.

Noise guidance and the possibility of a future airport runway may be material considerations. They may carry significant weight where the proposal conflicts with planning policies, even if the relevant policy permits development subject to noise insulation. They cannot, however, independently justify refusal if the alleged policy conflict arising from housing need is unsustainable.

The claimant challenged, under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Secretary of State’s refusal of permission for a major mixed-use development of about 1,900 dwellings and associated facilities north-east of Crawley.

The Secretary of State accepted an Inspector’s recommendation that permission should be refused. The Inspector considered that there was no immediate housing need, that the proposal conflicted with policies prioritising previously developed land, and that aircraft noise and the possibility of a second Gatwick runway carried significant weight.

The claimant challenged the treatment of noise, future airport prejudice, housing need and section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

1. Claim allowed. The Inspector’s conclusions, and the Secretary of State’s decision adopting them, were flawed. The decision was quashed and the matter had to be reconsidered.
2. The question of housing need was fundamental. The Inspector had to assess the likelihood that identified housing sites would deliver the required numbers. The Inspector had considered some evidence too readily, failed to take account of the Horley North West site, and wrongly allowed for windfalls despite paragraph 59 of PPS3. In a finely balanced decision, those errors were material.
3. The Inspector was entitled to treat the possibility of a second Gatwick runway as a material consideration. The Government’s policy required the option to remain open, and the evidence indicated that development might affect the runway’s alignment or operating regime and reduce the airport’s ultimate capacity. The possibility was not certain, but it was more than negligible and could properly receive significant, though less than substantial, weight.
4. The Inspector was also entitled to rely on the desirable upper noise limit in PPG24. That reliance did not conflict with Structure Plan policy NE19(b)(2)(vii), which permitted development between specified noise contours subject to adequate insulation, because the noise issue was considered in the context of an alleged conflict with other planning policies.
5. There was no separate failure to comply with section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The Secretary of State had identified the conflict with policies prioritising previously developed land and had explained why the noise and second-runway considerations were relevant. The defect lay in the underlying conclusions on need.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The claim under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 succeeded. The Secretary of State’s decision of 14 May 2007 was quashed and the matter was to be reconsidered.