York Council, City of v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

In a planning judicial review, an Inspector’s reasons are adequate if, read straightforwardly and in context, they identify the principal controversial issues, disclose how material legal and factual questions were resolved, and explain the outcome. A court should not interfere with planning judgments merely because another view is possible. Where a site contributes materially to a shortfall in deliverable housing land, the decision-maker may give substantial weight to bringing it forward quickly and may balance that priority against affordable-housing requirements. An indirect connection between a landowner’s potential loss and the availability of land does not necessarily mean that the loss has been treated as a material planning consideration.

The City of York Council applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash an Inspector’s decision allowing an appeal and granting outline permission for residential development at Water Lane, York.

The Inspector imposed no present affordable-housing requirement, but provided for possible future provision through a viability model. The Council alleged inadequate reasons and irrationality, arguing that the Inspector had impermissibly relied on the developer’s unwillingness to sell at a loss. The central issues were whether the reasons were legally sufficient and whether the conclusion was irrational.

1. Application dismissed. The Inspector’s decision was neither inadequately reasoned nor irrational.
2. The duty to give reasons, stated by Lord Brown in South Buckinghamshire DC v Porter (No.2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953, required intelligible and adequate reasons addressing the principal important controversial issues. The decision letter identified the main issue and the relevant sub-issues, including the National Planning Policy Framework, the housing-land shortfall, affordable-housing policy, viability and the developer’s claimed loss.
3. The Inspector was entitled to treat the shortage of deliverable housing land as carrying significant weight. He could conclude that the first priority was delivery of an acceptable amount of housing land and that a short-term deliverable site should not be unduly delayed by seeking too high a percentage of affordable housing.
4. Those conclusions were planning judgments. Consistently with Tesco Stores Ltd v SSE [1995] 1 WLR 759, R (Newsmith Stainless Ltd) v SSETR [2001] EWHC Admin 74 and Clarke Homes v SSE (1993) 66 P&CR 263, the court’s role was limited. The decision letter was to be read in a straightforward, down-to-earth manner without excessive legalism.
5. The Inspector had expressly found that the developer’s loss on the 2005 purchase price could not carry significant weight and did not rely directly on that loss in the final balancing exercise. The loss could indirectly affect the availability of the site, which in turn affected housing supply. That indirect connection did not amount to giving the loss weight as an independent planning consideration.

First-instance judicial review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The application sought to quash an Inspector’s appeal decision; the High Court dismissed the application.