Harrogate Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

A development plan policy expressing a preference for affordable housing over market housing does not necessarily impose an absolute requirement for affordable housing. The policy must be interpreted objectively, by reference to its language and proper context. A policy may encourage one form of development more strongly than another without making the less-preferred form unacceptable. An inspector must nevertheless give adequate reasons for the interpretation adopted and for the conclusion that planning permission is justified.

Harrogate Borough Council challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 an inspector’s decision allowing an appeal under section 78 against refusal of planning permission. The proposal involved converting a former hostel and caretaker’s cottage into two market dwellings.

The Council argued that Policy SG3 of the Harrogate Core Strategy gave practical priority to affordable housing or economic development over market housing, and that the inspector had failed to give adequate reasons for permitting a market-housing conversion. The central issues were the proper interpretation of SG3 and the adequacy of the inspector’s reasons.

1. The claim was dismissed. The inspector’s decision granting planning permission was lawful, and the claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s agreed costs of £6,924.
2. Development plan policies must be interpreted objectively, according to the language used and in its proper context. The policy text is important, although its reasoned justification and other explanatory information may also be considered.
3. Policy SG3 imposed strict control over new development in the countryside but expressly encouraged rural building conversions where the building made a positive contribution to landscape character. On the agreed facts, the proposal fell within that encouraged category.
4. The preference in SG3(2) for affordable housing rather than market housing did not make market housing unacceptable or require the provision of an affordable dwelling. Market housing remained encouraged as part of a qualifying rural building conversion, although affordable housing was encouraged more strongly.
5. The subjective intention of the Core Strategy inspector, as expressed in the report on the draft policy, was not of primary relevance to interpreting the adopted policy.
6. The affordable-housing thresholds in Policy H5 did not remove the SG3 preference. SG3 contained no limitation making that preference conditional on H5 being engaged.
7. The reasons challenge failed. The inspector adequately explained that SG3’s approach to affordable housing was enabling rather than prescriptive, and gave sufficient reasons for concluding that provision was not warranted in the particular case.

The inspector allowed the interested party’s planning appeal and granted permission subject to conditions and a unilateral undertaking. The High Court dismissed the Council’s statutory challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.