Dartford Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Planning policies, including the National Planning Policy Framework, operate within the statutory framework created by sections 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. They do not have statutory force or displace the statutory presumption in favour of the development plan. An inspector may adopt a pragmatic approach to housing land supply where the evidence provides a meaningful range of possible requirements. A full objectively assessed housing need figure need not be calculated in every section 78 appeal. Decision letters must give intelligible and adequate reasons on the principal controversial issues, but need not give reasons for reasons.

Dartford Borough Council applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash an inspector’s decision allowing Fairview Homes Limited’s appeal against refusal of permission for 56 dwellings at Stone, Dartford. The first decision on the appeal had previously been quashed.

The Council alleged inadequate reasoning concerning landscape character and visual effects, and inadequate reasoning concerning the five-year housing land supply and the appropriate housing requirement under paragraphs 47 and 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The central issues were whether the inspector had given adequate reasons and whether his approach to housing supply was legally permissible.

1. Application dismissed. The inspector’s reasoning on landscape was intelligible and adequate. He addressed the loss of the hedge, the retained trees and hedgerows, the relationship between the proposed development and surrounding communities, and both character and visual effects. He was not required to give reasons for his reasons.
2. The requirements for decision letters stated in Bloor Homes East Midlands Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWHC 754 (Admin) were adopted. Decision letters are construed flexibly. They must explain the conclusions on the principal important controversial issues, but the court must not undertake a review of planning merits. Policy interpretation is a matter of law, while policy application and planning weight are matters for the decision-maker.
3. Once the landscape objection failed, the proposal satisfied the criteria in policy CS10(4) of the Dartford Core Strategy for windfall sites. The policy was permissive and imposed no operative numerical ceiling. Applying section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, no material consideration remained capable of justifying refusal.
4. The inspector was entitled to assess housing delivery against the two figures advanced at the inquiry, including the lower needs-related figure, and to conclude that delivery was inadequate whichever figure was used. In the circumstances, neither paragraphs 47 and 49 of the NPPF nor St Albans v Hunston Properties Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1610 or Kings Lynn and West Norfolk BC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 2464 required a full exercise to determine an up-to-date FOAN.
5. The approach was context-sensitive. A fuller analysis might be required where housing supply was materially disputed and the proposal faced significant planning objections. It was unnecessary here because the site satisfied the relevant policy and no sustainable objection remained. The application was dismissed, with costs reserved for written submissions.

Not stated in the judgment.