Taylor Wimpey West London v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

A development-plan policy allocating land for mixed use, including housing and education or community use, does not permit the whole site to be used for housing merely because some off-site community provision is offered. The policy may leave the proportions of the different uses and the dwelling numbers to planning judgment. The decision-maker must assess whether the proposed balance satisfies the policy’s underlying aim. A proposal using the entire site for one use departs from the policy. A planning decision will not be quashed for an immaterial error, particularly where an independent and lawful ground provides a sufficient basis for the same outcome.

The claimant sought under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash an inspector’s dismissal of its planning appeal. The proposal concerned 193 residential units on the Elvian School site in Reading and made no provision for education or community use on the site.

The claimant challenged the inspector’s interpretation of Policy SA9b, his assessment of future secondary-school need, the adequacy of his reasons concerning layout, and the fairness of his treatment of amendments relating to trees. The central questions were whether the proposal accorded with the development plan and whether the inspector’s decision was legally flawed.

1. Application dismissed. The inspector’s decision was lawful and would not be quashed.
2. Policy SA9b required the site, excluding the playing fields, to be developed for mixed use including housing and education or community use. The claimant’s proposal used the entire site for residential purposes and therefore did not accord with the policy. Off-site community provision could not convert a single-use scheme into mixed-use development.
3. The policy did not prescribe fixed proportions of housing and non-residential use. The stated range of 70–110 dwellings was indicative. The decision-maker had to exercise judgment as to whether the balance of uses in a particular proposal satisfied the policy’s underlying objective. The inspector’s references to approximately two hectares or 40 per cent being available for housing were not to be read as identifying fixed allocations.
4. The interpretation of development-plan policy was governed by Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13. Construction was a matter of law, but the application of broadly expressed policy to particular facts could involve planning judgment, reviewable only on established public-law grounds.
5. The inspector was entitled to conclude that uncertainty about the size of the proposed Coley Park school and the possible need for further secondary-school provision made it inappropriate to release the whole site for housing. His assessment of school-place demand and the suitability of the site involved rational planning judgment. Any mistaken general observation about neighbouring authorities giving priority to their own children could not realistically have affected the decision.
6. The inspector gave adequate and intelligible reasons for rejecting the layout. He identified potential problems of visual amenity, privacy and security and explained why the arrangement was not characteristic of the locality. Those reasons satisfied South Bucks District Council v Porter (No. 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953.
7. Any unfairness concerning the tree amendments would not have affected the result. The independent finding of poor design, lack of sustainability and harm to character and appearance was sufficient by itself to justify dismissal of the appeal.

The judgment is a first-instance judicial review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 concerning an inspector’s decision dismissing the claimant’s section 78 planning appeal. No further appellate history is stated in the judgment.