Old Hunstanton Parish Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

Rural exception site policies permit affordable housing on sites that would not normally be released for housing, but only to meet the needs of the relevant small rural communities. Housing need in a neighbouring town or larger settlement cannot justify developing a green-field site in a rural village unless the policy properly extends to that community. The decision-maker must interpret development plan policies objectively, read in context, while retaining planning judgment on their application and the weight of material considerations. An inspector must give intelligible and adequate reasons on a fundamental question concerning the interpretation of a development plan policy. A failure to identify the relevant local communities, investigate the necessary local connections, and explain the policy interpretation may justify quashing the planning decision.

The claimant challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 an inspector’s decision granting permission for 15 affordable dwellings on a green-field site outside the settlement boundary of Old Hunstanton. The local planning authority had refused permission because of harm to the separation and character of the settlements and the countryside.

The central issue was whether the Rural Exception Site policies permitted the development to be justified by general housing need in nearby Hunstanton and Heacham, or required need to be established in Old Hunstanton and other nearby small rural communities. The claimant also argued that the inspector had failed to give adequate reasons.

1. The claim succeeded and the inspector’s decision was quashed. The challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was governed by ordinary judicial review principles. The court could intervene for legal misdirection, irrationality, failure to consider relevant matters or procedural impropriety, but could not revisit the merits or the weight given to planning considerations.
2. Under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, read with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Development plan policies must be interpreted objectively from their language and context. Supporting text may assist interpretation but cannot impose a requirement absent from the policy.
3. The Rural Exception Site policy was intended to provide affordable housing for small rural communities. The relevant local need was primarily that of the settlement containing the site, together with other nearby small rural settlements which the decision-maker found to be local. It could not be established merely by housing need in Hunstanton or Heacham, whose populations exceeded 3,000 and which were not the type of small rural communities contemplated by the policy.
4. The policy was an exception to the general protection of the countryside and resistance to green-field housing. Evidence of general housing need, or expressions of interest whose status and local connection had not been investigated, did not establish the necessary local housing need. The court could not make primary findings on incomplete evidence to cure the inspector’s failure.
5. The inspector failed to address the claimant’s central submission on the proper interpretation and application of the policy. That omission created substantial prejudice and meant that the decision did not disclose how a principal legal and factual issue had been resolved. Adequate reasons were required even though the principal parties agreed on the interpretation advanced before the inspector.

• Local planning authority: planning permission was refused on 6 February 2014.
• Planning appeal: an inspector allowed the developer’s appeal and granted permission on 1 December 2014.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the claimant’s section 288 challenge succeeded and the inspector’s decision was quashed.