Gladman Developments Ltd v Stafford Borough Council

A local plan must first identify the full objectively assessed housing need without applying policy or supply constraints. It must then determine how much of that need the plan should meet by applying relevant national policies. The assessment must consider market and economic signals, but no particular methodology or housing figure is prescribed. An inspector may reach the necessary conclusions from the evidence and representations read fairly as a whole.

Gladman Developments Ltd challenged parts of the adopted Plan for Stafford Borough under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The challenge concerned the housing requirements and distribution policies. The claimant alleged that the defendant and the examining inspector had failed to assess full objectively assessed housing need and had failed to consider market demand, market signals and other market indicators.

The central issue was whether the inspector’s report and the underlying evidence demonstrated lawful compliance with national planning guidance.

The claim was dismissed. The court held that the inspector had lawfully assessed full objectively assessed housing need and had properly considered market signals and other market indicators.

1. The NPPF requires a two-stage approach. Full objectively assessed housing need must first be identified without policy constraints. The authority must then consider whether, and to what extent, other policies justify or require constraint.
2. The inspector was entitled to consider household and population projections, migration, affordable housing, the wider housing market, economic factors, past completions and other evidence. He was not required to rely on one set of projections or to adopt a prescribed methodology.
3. The inspector had evidence and representations from both parties concerning market signals and other market indicators, including demographic, economic and affordability material. He was entitled to conclude that the defendant’s approach was justified. His conclusion was not alleged to be perverse.
4. The inspector was not required to refer expressly to Gallagher Estates Ltd v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council. The report showed that he understood the distinction between objectively assessed need and policy-constrained provision.
5. An inspector’s report must be read fairly as a whole. It should not be subjected to close textual or exegetical analysis of the kind appropriate to statutory provisions.

The challenged plan provisions were neither quashed nor remitted.