Satnam Millennium Ltd v Warrington Borough Council

A local planning authority must assess housing needs in its own area, but housing need must be assessed through the relevant housing market area where that area crosses administrative boundaries. A joint local plan is not the only lawful means of undertaking that assessment. The objectively assessed need must be identified before applying planning policy constraints. Affordable housing need forms part of the full objectively assessed need and must be identified separately before considering its likely delivery through mixed developments. Strategic environmental assessment must be undertaken throughout plan preparation, including assessment of reasonable alternatives before choices are made. Substantial failures to comply with the environmental reporting requirements justify quashing the relevant plan, rather than treating the defects as merely procedural.

The claimant, a developer promoting land at Peel Hall, challenged Warrington Borough Council’s adopted Local Plan Core Strategy under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The challenge concerned the housing requirement for Warrington and the Mid Mersey housing market area, the treatment of affordable housing need, and the preparation of the strategic environmental assessment supporting modifications to the plan. The claimant also alleged that the Council and the Inspector had predetermined the allocation of land at Omega and the deletion of the policy which had identified Peel Hall as a strategic location.

The central issues were whether the plan lawfully assessed and provided for objectively assessed housing need, including affordable housing need, and whether the environmental assessment complied with the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004.

1. Housing needs. The statutory duty of a local planning authority relates primarily to its own area. However, paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires the Local Plan to meet the full objectively assessed need in the relevant housing market area. Paragraph 159 requires the authority to understand housing needs in its area while preparing a Strategic Housing Market Assessment with neighbouring authorities where the housing market area crosses administrative boundaries. A joint local plan is not the only lawful method of assessing need across boundaries.
2. The Inspector had sufficiently identified the objectively assessed need for the Mid Mersey housing market area and had assessed Warrington’s own need as part of that exercise. The two-stage approach identified in Gallagher required objective need to be assessed before the application of other NPPF policies. The reduction of the starting figure for Warrington was nevertheless lawful in the circumstances because it reflected the provision made across the housing market area and the relationship between jobs and housing.
3. The challenge succeeded on affordable housing. The assessed need of 477 dwellings per annum had not been expressed or included as part of the objectively assessed need. Affordable housing need had to be identified, considered in the context of likely delivery through mixed market and affordable developments, and met subject only to the relevant NPPF constraints. The Inspector’s discussion of affordable housing percentages and viability did not perform that exercise.
4. Strategic environmental assessment. The assessment had to be undertaken at each stage of plan preparation, and reasonable alternatives had to be identified, described and evaluated before the relevant choices were made. The court rejected the allegation that the later independent work was merely a bolt-on exercise designed to justify a predetermined strategy.
5. However, the environmental report substantially failed to comply with Schedule 2 to the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004. The omissions were matters of substance, not form. Applying the principles in Walton v Scottish Ministers and Seaport Investments Ltd, it would have been wrong to decline to quash on discretionary grounds. The claim succeeded on Ground 2, succeeded on Ground 1 Issue 5, and failed on Ground 3.

Not stated in the judgment. The decision was a first-instance challenge to Warrington Borough Council’s adopted Local Plan Core Strategy.