London Borough of Islington & Ors v The Mayor of London

A regional planning authority may adopt a strategic policy restricting borough-wide rent caps for affordable rented housing where that policy is rationally directed to maximising delivery and is consistent with national planning policy. The National Planning Policy Framework does not require, or prohibit, local rent caps. It leaves the detailed means of meeting objectively assessed housing needs to regional and local judgment.

Ministers’ views may be considered as evidence on consistency with national policy, but the objective meaning of the policy remains for the court. A decision-maker may also treat London as a single housing market, despite significant local variations, where that conclusion is supported by planning judgment and evidence.

Nine London boroughs sought judicial review of the Mayor’s decision to publish Revised Early Minor Alterations to the London Plan under Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The alterations stated that boroughs should avoid borough-level caps on affordable rents and should not set rent targets for affordable rented housing in local development frameworks.

The boroughs argued that the policy exceeded the Mayor’s statutory powers, conflicted with the National Planning Policy Framework, failed to give proper weight to the Inspector’s report, and unlawfully relied on ministerial views. They also challenged the conclusion that London could be treated as a single housing market.

1. Claim dismissed. The Mayor was exercising statutory powers to make policy and planning judgments. The disputed policy was within the lawful range of those judgments and did not disclose an error of law.
2. Under sections 334 and 341(1) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, the Mayor may prepare and publish a spatial development strategy and alterations to it. The London Plan forms part of the statutory development plan. Under section 24 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, borough development documents must be in general conformity with it. Accordingly, the Mayor’s strategic policy could prevail in the event of conflict.
3. The National Planning Policy Framework was expressed in broad objectives. Its definition of affordable rented housing required rent of no more than 80 per cent of local market rent, but paragraph 47 neither required nor prohibited local rent caps. The Mayor was entitled to conclude that inflexible caps could threaten viability and reduce the supply of affordable housing. Disagreement with that strategy concerned its merits, not legality.
4. The Mayor was required to take the Inspector’s report into account but was not bound to accept its recommendations. He had plainly considered the report and gave adequate reasons for departing from it.
5. The Mayor was entitled to consider ministerial views on consistency with national policy, provided that he formed his own interpretation. The objective meaning of planning policy remained a matter for the court, as explained in Tesco Stores Limited v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13. The Secretary of State’s view was evidence, not determinative.
6. The Mayor was entitled, as a matter of planning judgment, to regard London as a single housing market with local variations. Any challenge to that approach in the 2011 London Plan was out of time under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.