Zurich Assurance Ltd v Winchester City Council & Anor

A person who has not personally participated in the preparation of a planning document may nevertheless be a person aggrieved where an agent participated for that person’s benefit and the person has a substantial interest affected by the document. The statutory duty to co-operate requires constructive, active and continuing engagement on strategic cross-boundary matters. It does not require agreement or joint plans where the authorities have reasonably considered that course. Review of an inspector’s conclusions on soundness, co-operation and environmental assessment is limited. The court asks whether the conclusions were rational and lawful, allowing appropriate latitude for planning judgment. A strategic core strategy need not itself satisfy every detailed housing-supply requirement in paragraph 47 of the NPPF if that requirement is to be addressed in later development plan documents.

Zurich owned land in Winchester City Council’s area and challenged the adoption of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1—Joint Core Strategy. The strategy provided for 12,500 homes between 2011 and 2031 and had been jointly adopted by Winchester City Council and the South Downs National Park Authority following an independent examination.

The challenge under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 alleged that the Inspector had adopted an unlawful methodology for assessing housing need, failed to apply the duty to co-operate, and relied on an inadequate sustainability appraisal under the SEA Directive and the Environmental Assessment Regulations. The defendants also disputed Zurich’s standing as a person aggrieved.

1. Standing. Zurich was a person aggrieved. The relevant question was substantive and concerned the justice of the case. Barton Willmore had participated in the plan-making process on behalf of an unidentified client, and its representations addressed Zurich’s interests. Zurich’s substantial interest as a major landowner, combined with that participation, was sufficient. The failure to identify Zurich was deprecated but did not defeat standing.
2. Housing requirement. The Inspector was entitled to assess the 2011–2031 requirement using up-to-date evidence. The alleged 2006–2011 shortfall against the South East Plan’s annual average was not an actual shortfall against a binding annual target. It was therefore unnecessary and irrational to add that figure mechanically to later demographic projections. The Inspector’s selection of 12,500 homes was a lawful exercise of planning judgment, and his reasons were adequate under South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter (No. 2) [2004] UKHL 33.
3. Paragraph 47 of the NPPF. The Core Strategy was a strategic document. The detailed five-year land-supply and buffer requirements could be addressed in later development plan documents. Their absence from the Core Strategy did not make it unsound.
4. Duty to co-operate. Section 33A required constructive, active and continuing engagement to maximise effectiveness on strategic cross-boundary matters. It did not require joint plans or agreement. The Inspector was entitled to apply a rationality standard, and the evidence showed that Winchester had engaged appropriately with neighbouring authorities, including through PUSH arrangements.
5. Environmental assessment. The adequacy of the Sustainability Appraisal and the selection of reasonable alternatives involved planning judgment subject to conventional Wednesbury review. The Inspector was entitled to find that the additional housing capacity and modifications would not create significant additional environmental effects requiring further assessment. The challenge was dismissed.