Langton Homes Limited v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

An inspector’s planning decision will not be quashed merely because its reasoning is brief. The reasons must convey the substance of the reasoning to an informed reader. The weight given to emerging policy, housing supply, fallback permissions, precedent and other planning considerations is ordinarily a matter of planning judgment. A court must not substitute its own assessment unless the judgment is irrational. An inspector need not treat the approach in PF Ahern (London) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment as a rigid test, nor consider un suggested split permissions or conditions where those possibilities were not raised and the decision adequately addresses the material issues.

The claimant challenged, under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, an inspector’s dismissal of its appeal against refusal of permission for seven dwellings on the site of a former public house in Tur Langton. The challenge concerned the treatment of settlement limits, an emerging local planning policy, the National Planning Policy Framework, precedent, the character of the area, fallback permissions, and possible split permission or conditions.

The inspector dismissed the appeal in a decision letter dated 8 May 2013. The central question was whether the decision disclosed legal error, irrationality or inadequate reasons warranting quashing.

1. Claim dismissed. None of the grounds challenging the inspector’s decision was made out.
2. The inspector had read and understood the claimant’s further representations, including the Harborough Scoping Consultation document. Her statement that the local planning authority might change its approach to settlement limits, but had not yet done so, adequately conveyed why little or no weight was given to the emerging policy. Reasons need not be lengthy if they are intelligible and adequate to informed readers.
3. The weight given to the existing development plan, the emerging policy, the National Planning Policy Framework and the alleged housing shortfall was a matter of planning judgment. The inspector was entitled to attach weight to existing policies where the alleged shortfall was unproved and the policy change remained provisional. The court could not substitute its own view unless the judgment was perverse.
4. The inspector had evidence capable of supporting a precedent concern because settlement edges in Tur Langton were vulnerable to development pressure. That was a material consideration, although it was not determinative.
5. The Conservation Area and the wider rural character of the village were distinct, or at least capable of being distinct, considerations. It was therefore rational to find no significant harm to the Conservation Area while concluding that the proposal would compromise the rural character of the outskirts.
6. Existing planning permissions were material fallback considerations, but their weight depended on their impact on the main planning issue. PF Ahern (London) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment supplied useful guidance but did not impose a rigid test. The inspector considered the relevant implications with adequate brevity.
7. An inspector may grant a different or split permission, and may consider conditions, but was not required to search for possibilities that experienced representatives had not raised. The decision letter nevertheless showed that the inspector had considered whether some conditions were appropriate.

The local planning authority refused the planning application on 13 June 2012. An inspector dismissed the claimant’s planning appeal in a decision letter dated 8 May 2013. The High Court dismissed the statutory challenge.