Bovis Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

On an appeal under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the court reviews a planning decision only on ordinary public law grounds. An emerging development-plan policy may be a material consideration even before adoption. Its weight is a matter of planning judgment, informed by the stage reached in preparation, the nature of any outstanding objections and the policy’s prospects of adoption. A policy caveat permitting an alternative housing mix requires information with a clear and acceptable methodological basis. Anecdotal evidence, assertions and local residents’ views will ordinarily be insufficient. A planning decision letter must give intelligible and adequate reasons on the principal important controversial issues, but need not address every material consideration.

The claimant appealed under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against an Inspector’s dismissal of its planning appeal. The proposed development comprised 14 dwellings at Benefield Road, Oundle.

The Inspector accepted that the proposal adequately addressed education, affordable housing, open space and privacy. She dismissed the appeal because the proposed mix did not provide mainly one- or two-bedroom houses, contrary to emerging Policy 11 of the Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Development Plan Document and Policy 15 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

The claimant argued that the Inspector misunderstood the policy, failed to consider evidence supporting a different mix and gave inadequate reasons for attaching considerable weight to the emerging policy.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Inspector’s decision was not shown to be unlawful on any recognised public law ground.
2. An appeal under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is governed by the ordinary principles of public law. The court applied the approach summarised in [2004] 1 WLR 1953: reasons must be intelligible and adequate, explain the conclusions on the principal important controversial issues and avoid substantial doubt that the decision-maker misunderstood the law or relevant policy.
3. The examining Inspector intended the caveat in Policy 11 to require information of the kind conveyed by a housing-needs survey. It need not be a formal local-authority survey, but it must have a clear and acceptable methodological basis. The material relied on by the claimant, including assertions, local information and anecdotal evidence, did not meet that standard.
4. The Inspector was entitled to treat the revised Policy 11 as a material consideration. The policy had been examined and found sound, and the outstanding objections to the development plan did not concern that provision. Its abandonment was therefore not irrevocable.
5. The weight given to an emerging policy is primarily a matter of planning judgment. In the circumstances, the Inspector was entitled to attach considerable weight to Policy 11. The national guidance was relevant but was not to be construed as a statute; it informed, rather than displaced, the Inspector’s planning judgment.
6. The Inspector’s reasons sufficiently explained why the proposed mix conflicted with the emerging policy and why that conflict outweighed the proposal’s other advantages. The decision was therefore upheld.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the claimant’s section 288 appeal against the Inspector’s decision dated 15 June 2010 was dismissed.