Bellway Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

A Grampian condition is not governed by a mandatory rule that planning permission must be granted unless there is no prospect of the condition being fulfilled. The decision-maker must first consider whether the condition could possibly be fulfilled within the relevant period. If so, the decision-maker retains a planning discretion whether to impose it. That discretion must be exercised for sound planning reasons, taking account of matters including the detail and likely effects of the proposed works, their enforceability, precision and reasonableness, and the relevant highway-safety consequences.

Bellway Homes applied for permission to build 104 homes in Congleton. Cheshire East Council refused permission. Following an inquiry, the Secretary of State’s Inspector dismissed the statutory appeal, finding that the proposed development would adversely affect highway safety and that neither the proposed works nor a Grampian condition could reasonably be relied upon to overcome that harm.

Bellway challenged the decision under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act, contending that the Inspector had applied the wrong test under national planning policy. The central issue was whether the Inspector had rejected the condition merely because its fulfilment was uncertain, or had lawfully exercised a broader planning discretion.

1. The claim was dismissed. The Inspector’s decision was not unlawful.
2. A challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act is not a review of the planning merits. The assessment of facts and the weighing of planning considerations are for the Inspector. The decision letter must be read fairly and as a whole.
3. The Planning Practice Guidance did not require permission to be granted whenever there was some prospect that a Grampian condition might be fulfilled. A decision-maker should determine whether the proposed condition is capable of fulfilment. That question may be addressed at any stage of the reasoning process, but it must be decided.
4. Once possible fulfilment is established, the decision-maker retains a discretion whether to impose the condition. That discretion must be exercised by reference to sound planning reasons and the requirements that conditions be enforceable, precise and reasonable.
5. The Inspector had accepted that a scheme of speed-reduction works could be designed and put in place. She then considered the absence of detailed design, the lack of consultation, the uncertainty about local effects and the potential impact on highway users and residents. She also balanced the absence of congestion effects and the lack of increased risk at Fol Hollow.
6. The Inspector’s conclusion that the development would harm highway safety was expressly related to local-plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework. Her references to uncertainty about implementation therefore formed part of a wider planning judgment, rather than establishing an erroneous mandatory approach.

The planning application was refused by Cheshire East Council. Bellway appealed to the Secretary of State under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act. Following a public inquiry, the Inspector dismissed the appeal on 15 December 2014. The present section 288 challenge was dismissed by the High Court.