Scrivens v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government

Sustainable development is a broad planning concept. It is not synonymous with autarky or near-zero energy use, and energy credentials do not operate as a trump card. Decision-makers must balance the development plan and all material considerations, including design, countryside character, location and effects on neighbouring communities. Under paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework, an innovative isolated dwelling must satisfy all the stated requirements, including exceptional design quality, high architectural standards, enhancement of its setting and sensitivity to local characteristics. The weight given to competing considerations is a matter of planning judgment. The court will intervene only for an error of law or irrationality. A planning costs order must identify the costs payable with sufficient certainty.

Three matters concerning proposed dwellings at Longberry Farm, Kent, were heard together. Two applications under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 challenged inspectors’ dismissal of appeals concerning refusals, or failure to determine applications, for planning permission. The third matter sought judicial review of an inspector’s partial costs award.

The claimant advanced innovative, autarkic dwelling designs and argued that the National Planning Policy Framework, European energy policy and the statutory objective of sustainable development required permission. The central issues were whether the inspectors had misunderstood sustainable development, failed to apply the relevant planning policies, or acted irrationally, and whether the costs order was sufficiently certain.

1. The section 288 applications were dismissed. The statutory framework required regard to the development plan and other material considerations, with decisions made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework was not itself a development plan, but it was a material consideration.
2. Sustainable development was not confined to energy efficiency, autarky or the claimant’s proposed five-part formulation. It required consideration of present and future needs and could include design, environmental effects, the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and effects on communities. The duty to pursue sustainable development did not require permission for development which caused unacceptable planning harm.
3. The inspectors were entitled to conclude that the proposed buildings’ scale, design, locations and effects on rural character outweighed their renewable-energy benefits. The weight given to those competing considerations was a matter of planning judgment. Disagreement with that judgment was not an error of law, and no irrationality was shown.
4. For an isolated new dwelling under paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework, innovative design was not sufficient by itself. The proposal also had to be truly outstanding or innovative, reflect the highest standards of architecture, significantly enhance its immediate setting and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.
5. A neighbouring permission would rarely create a legitimate expectation that permission must be granted. Consistency could be material, and a previous decision might matter where there had been no material change, but the inspector had identified relevant differences and was entitled to distinguish the applications.
6. The judicial review challenge to the substance of the costs award failed. However, the order requiring payment of costs so far as they related to the quantity of material submitted was insufficiently certain. It was quashed to that extent, with the parties directed to provide a more precise formulation.

First-instance decision. The judgment reviewed two planning inspectors’ decisions and partially quashed a related costs order on judicial review.