Borough Council of Kings Lynn And West Norfolk v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

A full objectively assessed need for housing is assessed before the application of planning policy constraints. It may include evidence-based adjustments for vacancies and second homes where those matters show that part of the existing housing stock is unavailable to meet local need. The assessment is informed by the Strategic Housing Market Assessment and relevant statistical evidence, but no single assessment is conclusive. The absence of specific guidance in the Planning Practice Guidance does not make a sound statistical adjustment impermissible.

Inspectors must give intelligible and adequate reasons on the principal controversial issues. A failure to explain a subsidiary calculation will not justify quashing a decision unless it causes substantial prejudice. At a hearing, the Inspector bears the inquisitorial responsibility for testing the evidence and must adjourn or regulate the procedure if late material prevents that duty being discharged.

The claimant local planning authority challenged the Secretary of State’s decision allowing an appeal by Elm Park Holdings Ltd against refusal of outline planning permission for 40 dwellings at Clenchwarton.

The Inspector concluded that the authority had only a 1.91-year housing land supply. In calculating full objectively assessed need, he included adjustments for vacancies and second homes, applied a 20% buffer, discounted large-site windfalls and excluded emerging site allocations.

The claimant alleged unlawful treatment of vacancies and second homes, inadequate reasons, and procedural unfairness because the Inspector proceeded without first reading material supplied late at the hearing. The court considered whether the Inspector had lawfully assessed housing need, explained his conclusions and discharged his inquisitorial duty.

1. Ground 1 dismissed. A full objectively assessed need is the assessment of housing need before applying planning policies. It is not the policy-constrained housing requirement produced through the forward-planning process. The assessment must be undertaken alongside paragraph 159 of the Framework and the Strategic Housing Market Assessment process.
2. Vacancies and second homes may properly be included in the assessment where empirical evidence supports treating them as a continuing trend affecting the availability of housing to meet local need. That is a statistical judgment, not an impermissible policy adjustment. Guidance addressing vacant homes as potential supply does not prevent vacancies and second homes being considered earlier when calculating need.
3. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment is important evidence but is not conclusive. The Inspector may assess household and population projections, migration, demographic change, housing types and tenures, affordable housing and market signals using planning judgment. Affordable housing need must be addressed, but need not necessarily be included in full as a corresponding addition to the full objectively assessed need.
4. The reasons challenge failed. The Inspector adequately explained the 20% buffer by reference to persistent under-delivery. The calculation of the housing supply and the treatment of the relevant need figures were sufficiently clear to an informed reader. Although the choice between competing small-site windfall figures and the exclusion of emerging allocations required fuller explanation, those shortcomings caused no substantial prejudice because they could not affect the decisive conclusion that there was no five-year supply.
5. Ground 3 dismissed. The Inspector’s inquisitorial role at a hearing requires him to test and explore the evidence. If late material prevents that duty being performed, he must adjourn or regulate the procedure. In this case he understood the issues, obtained what he needed from the discussion and did not act unfairly by proceeding without an adjournment.
6. The claim was dismissed on all three grounds.

Not stated in the judgment.