Gladman Developments Ltd v Daventry District Council & Anor

The age of a development plan policy does not by itself make the policy out of date or diminish its statutory priority. Under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, decisions must accord with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

When applying paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the decision-maker must assess the policy’s consistency with the Framework as a whole. Chronological age is irrelevant to that assessment. Paragraph 49 creates a separate category of housing policies deemed out of date when the authority lacks a five-year supply.

The second bullet point of paragraph 47 also informs decision-taking where the five-year supply standard is unmet. Compliance with that standard leaves paragraph 47 without further implications for an individual decision.

A planning inspector allowed the developer’s appeal against the refusal of outline permission for 121 dwellings on open fields adjoining Weedon Bec. The development conflicted with saved Local Plan policies HS22 and HS24, but the inspector gave that conflict reduced weight because of the policies’ age and an asserted lack of consistency with the housing objective in paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

On the council’s application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Lang J quashed the inspector’s decision. She held that paragraph 215 required an assessment of the saved policies’ consistency with the Framework’s full range of relevant policies. The inspector had instead focused too narrowly on paragraphs 47 and 49.

The developer appealed. The central issues were how old development plan policies should be treated and whether paragraph 47 applied to decision-taking as well as plan-making.

1. Appeal dismissed. The inspector failed to undertake the assessment required by paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework. He focused excessively on paragraphs 47 and 49 and did not assess policies HS22 and HS24 against the other relevant policies in the Framework. This was a substantive failure to address the required issue, rather than merely a failure to give adequate reasons. The separate treatment of landscape policies elsewhere in his decision could not cure that error.

2. Old policies which remain part of the development plan retain the priority conferred by section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Decisions must accord with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Mere age does not remove a policy from the plan or make it out of date. Its weight may nevertheless vary as circumstances and relevant planning guidance change.

3. Paragraph 215 requires an assessment of an existing policy’s degree of consistency with the Framework. Chronological age is irrelevant to that inquiry. Significant weight may remain appropriate because plan-led decision-making promotes coherent and properly targeted development. A policy’s continuing objectives and its relationship with the full range of Framework policies must therefore be examined.

4. Paragraph 49 creates a special category of housing policies deemed out of date where the authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable sites. A policy which is not deemed out of date under paragraph 49 may still be out of date under the general approach. In this case, however, the demonstrated five-year supply tended to show that unmet housing need did not compel the policies to be overridden.

5. Paragraph 47 contains a mixture of plan-making and decision-taking policies. Its first, third, fourth and fifth bullet points concern plan-making. The second bullet point is not so confined because its requirement for annual updating creates a continuing obligation outside the plan-making process and is tied to paragraph 49. Where the five-year supply standard is met, paragraph 47 has no implications for decision-taking and does not provide more recent guidance capable, on that basis alone, of rendering restrictive housing policies out of date.

6. The inspector’s grant of permission remained quashed. The developer’s planning appeal was therefore to be reheard by a different inspector.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The developer’s appeal was dismissed in [2016] EWCA Civ 1146. The order quashing the inspector’s decision remained effective.

2. High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Lang J allowed the council’s application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and quashed the inspector’s grant of planning permission. No neutral citation for that judgment is stated.

3. Planning inspector: The inspector had allowed the developer’s appeal against refusal of permission and granted outline permission. The planning appeal was consequently required to be reheard by a different inspector.