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

In a planning challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the court reaffirmed that the development plan remains the statutory starting point. The National Planning Policy Framework is government policy and a material consideration, but it does not replace the statutory planning framework or prescribe the weight to be given to development plan policies.

An inspector must assess the proposal against the development plan as a whole, identify the nature and extent of any conflict, and exercise planning judgment on the weight of competing considerations. Undesignated or ordinary countryside may still have planning value and its loss may be harmful. A housing proposal may therefore be refused where landscape harm outweighs housing and other benefits, even though it supports some development-plan objectives.

The claimant applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash an inspector’s decision dated 9 October 2015 dismissing its appeal against refusal of outline planning permission for residential development at Ratby, Leicestershire.

The proposed scheme comprised up to 158 dwellings, including affordable housing, with associated access, open space, play facilities and footpath and cycle routes. The inspector identified landscape impact and housing supply as the principal issues. He found that the proposal would cause substantial landscape harm, conflict with saved policies RES5 and NE5, and that the Borough had a five-year housing land supply. The central questions were whether the inspector had misunderstood the development plan or the National Planning Policy Framework, failed to assess sustainability and housing need, or provided inadequate reasons.

The claim was dismissed. The court held that the inspector’s decision letter disclosed no error of law.

1. The statutory starting point was the development plan, under section 70(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The inspector had to consider the proposal against the development plan as a whole, including both policies supporting and policies resisting the development. He also had to identify the nature and extent of any conflict.
2. The inspector gave clear and rational reasons for finding that the development would extend into open countryside, cut across existing landscape features and cause substantial harm to the character and appearance of the landscape. That justified findings of conflict with policies RES5 and NE5. The reference to the site’s recreational value, including the public footpath, was a permissible planning consideration and was adequately reasoned.
3. The National Planning Policy Framework was a material consideration rather than a statutory code. Following Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 168, it did not displace the statutory presumption in favour of the development plan, determine the weight to be given to policies, or require policies to be ignored. The inspector was entitled to give continuing weight to policies protecting the countryside, particularly because he found an adequate five-year housing land supply.
4. The fact that the proposal supported some objectives of Core Strategy Policy 8 did not establish compliance with the development plan as a whole. The inspector accepted the benefits of additional local and affordable housing and support for local facilities, but was entitled to conclude that landscape harm outweighed them.
5. The inspector had not expressly created a separate heading addressing sustainable development under paragraph 7 of the Framework, but he had considered the relevant economic, social and environmental matters in substance. No formal structure or express reference was required where the reasoning showed that the issues had been addressed.

The court emphasised that it was not entitled to review the planning merits. The claim was therefore dismissed.

The judgment was a first-instance decision on an application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The court dismissed the challenge to the inspector’s decision.