KGL (Estates) Ltd v South Staffordshire District Council

In a challenge to a planning document under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the court reviews the inspector’s legal approach, not the planning merits directly. A plan may be found sound where its detailed allocations result from broad planning judgment and the inspector has sufficiently considered the relevant issue. Reasons must be read realistically, in a commonsense rather than over-legalistic manner, and by an informed audience. An inspector need not address every matter in detail. The report must, however, make clear what was decided and why on the principal important controversial issues. Where a disputed issue received limited attention in the examination, concise reasoning may suffice.

The claimant, a landowner, challenged the defendant local planning authority’s adopted Core Strategy under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The challenge concerned the allocation of housing between villages, particularly the allocation for Great Wyrley. The claimant argued that the examining inspector had erred in law, acted irrationally, or given inadequate reasons in concluding that the Core Strategy was sound under paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The central issue was whether the inspector had sufficiently addressed, and given adequate reasons for, the individual village allocations.

1. The claim was dismissed. The claimant did not challenge the overall housing figure or the principle that 90% of new housing should be directed to Main Service Villages.
2. The inspector’s task was to decide whether the Core Strategy was sound, including whether it was positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy. The court was not required to reassess directly the merits of the Council’s allocation process.
3. The examination materials showed that the inspector had raised both the overall 90:10 distribution and the allocation between individual villages. Although his report concentrated on the broader strategy, its references to the evolution of the plan, the proposed distribution and the factors underpinning housing distribution sufficiently indicated that he had considered the individual allocations.
4. The individual allocations resulted from broad planning judgment rather than an analysis which mandated one precise numerical outcome. Given the limited controversy concerning those allocations and the top-down structure of the policy, the inspector was entitled to approve the table without requiring a more detailed explanation.
5. The report was to be read in a commonsense and realistic manner by informed readers. Applying the approach in South Bucks DC v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953, the reasons sufficiently explained what had been decided and why. The irrationality and reasons challenges therefore also failed.