Chelmsford City Council v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government

A statutory review of a planning appeal decision is confined to errors of law. The court does not reconsider planning judgment or the weight given to material considerations. An Inspector must give intelligible and adequate reasons on the principal important controversial issues, but need not address every evidential point. Where a jobs figure is adopted as a conservative estimate supported by past trends and other evidence, the Inspector may assess housing need using different economic activity-rate assumptions without inheriting the assumptions underlying one forecasting model. The absence of separate reasoning on a subsidiary methodological point does not establish that it was ignored, particularly where the Inspector’s reasons address the central issue and incorporate the point.

Gladman Developments Ltd appealed against the refusal of outline planning permission for up to 145 dwellings. The appointed Inspector allowed the appeal and granted permission. The Council challenged that decision under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 288.

The challenge concerned the calculation of objectively assessed housing need and the resulting five-year housing land supply. The Council argued that the Inspector had failed to address, or irrationally accepted, an alleged methodological inconsistency between the jobs forecast and the economic activity-rate assumptions used to calculate housing need. The central issues were whether the Inspector gave adequate reasons, took the material consideration into account, and reached a rational conclusion.

1. Statutory review. A challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is a review for error of law, not a merits appeal. Matters of planning judgment and the weight given to material considerations remain for the decision-maker: Newsmith Stainless Steel Ltd v Secretary of State [2001] EWHC 74; Tesco Stores v Secretary of State [1995] 1 WLR 759.
2. Reasons. The duty to give reasons requires intelligible and adequate reasons enabling the reader to understand why the decision was reached and how the principal important controversial issues were resolved. Reasons need not address every material consideration or every argument. A reasons challenge succeeds only where the deficiency causes substantial prejudice: South Bucks District Council and another v Porter (No 2) [2004] UKHL 33. The same principles apply when it is argued that a material consideration was omitted. Failure to mention a point does not, without more, establish that it was ignored: MJT Securities Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1997] 3 PLR 43.
3. Application to the alleged methodological inconsistency. The Inspector adequately addressed the principal issue, namely whether the Council’s economic activity-rate assumptions were realistic and which alternative rates should be preferred. The figure of 887 additional jobs per annum was treated as a conservative figure supported by past trends and several evidential sources, rather than as a figure requiring adoption of every underlying assumption in the EEFM model. The Inspector was therefore entitled to use alternative, more realistic economic activity-rate assumptions when assessing housing need.
4. Rationality. The Inspector’s preference for the OBR, EU and KCC rates was rationally open to him. Those rates were broadly consistent and materially below the rates relied on by the Council, while the Inspector explained the weight given to the Ormesby decision and why it was preferred over the differing approach in Muxton Lane. Grounds 1, 2, 3 and 4 disclosed no error of law. The claim was dismissed.

The judgment does not state a prior appellate history for this statutory review. The challenged decision was an Inspector’s decision allowing the planning appeal and granting permission.