Gladman Development Ltd v Wokingham Borough Council

An inspector examining a development plan document that allocates sites for an agreed quantity of housing need not also determine whether an objective assessment would disclose a need for additional housing. The requirements in paragraphs 47, 158, 159 and 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework apply according to the scope and purpose of the particular development plan document. A later document may lawfully give effect to an earlier adopted strategy, even if that strategy may require review or additional housing provision. The inspector must still assess whether the allocations are sound, including whether they provide an adequate five-year housing land supply, and must give adequate and intelligible reasons.

The claimant applied under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to quash the defendant local planning authority’s Managing Development Delivery Local Plan. The plan allocated sites for at least 13,230 dwellings, following the housing provision identified in the authority’s adopted Core Strategy.

The claimant argued that the examining inspector had failed to determine the objectively assessed housing need required by the National Planning Policy Framework, had failed to determine whether the plan provided a five-year housing land supply, and had given inadequate reasons. The claimant also sought permission to amend the claim to challenge the authority’s treatment of proposed modifications. The central issues were whether the inspector could examine the soundness of a site-allocation plan without reassessing overall housing need, and whether his conclusions were adequately reasoned.

1. The claim was dismissed. The inspector lawfully examined the Managing Development Delivery Local Plan as a document allocating sites for the quantity of housing identified in the adopted Core Strategy. He did not determine that the Core Strategy figure represented the objectively assessed housing need, but he was not required to do so for this examination.
2. The statutory scheme permits a development plan to comprise several development plan documents. Under sections 19(2)(h) and 20(5)(a) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, a later document may give effect to an earlier adopted document while the earlier document remains subject to possible review. The legislation did not require the later allocation document to be withheld until additional housing need had been assessed.
3. The Framework was guidance and had to be read in the context of the statutory scheme and the particular document under examination. Paragraphs 47, 158, 159 and 182 were material where the plan dealt with assessing housing need. They did not require a document allocating sites for an agreed quantity of housing to determine whether further provision might subsequently be required.
4. The inspector had recognised that the Core Strategy figure might understate current need and that the existing strategic housing market assessment was outdated. His conclusion that it was appropriate, in the local context, to rely on the Core Strategy figure was adequately explained. Even if the Framework required an objective assessment, the inspector had given sufficient reasons for proceeding without one.
5. The inspector had determined the five-year housing land supply issue. Reading his report as a whole, he concluded that the allocations, including the sites in policies SAL01–SAL03, provided sufficient and appropriately located land. His reasons were adequate and intelligible. The assessment of soundness was a matter of planning judgment, subject to legality and rationality: Barratt Developments plc v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council [2010] EWCA Civ 897.
6. The approach was consistent with Gallagher Homes Ltd v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council [2014] EWHC 1283 (Admin), which concerned a different type of plan: one that itself assessed housing provision. Permission to amend the claim was refused because the proposed ground disclosed no arguable error and was raised very late.

The application was dismissed.