Hallam Land Management Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

In determining a planning appeal, the decision-maker need not always calculate a precise five-year housing land supply shortfall. The essential question is whether supply is above or below five years. A precise figure, range or full analysis is required only where the circumstances make it necessary to decide the issues.

The weight given to housing benefits, restrictive policies and other planning considerations is primarily for the decision-maker, subject to legal rationality. Consistency between decisions cannot be required where the later decision did not exist when the earlier decision was made, and an unpublished Inspector’s report is not necessarily a material consideration.

The claimant challenged the Secretary of State’s dismissal of a planning appeal concerning proposed housing, care facilities, open space and associated works at Hamble. The challenge was brought under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The claimant argued that the Secretary of State had failed to determine the five-year housing land supply position, failed to give adequate reasons, failed to take account of a later Inspector’s report concerning a separate Eastleigh appeal, and reached inconsistent conclusions on the weight to be given to Local Gap Policy 3.CO. The central issues were whether a precise housing shortfall had to be determined and whether consistency duties or information-gathering duties were engaged.

1. The claim was dismissed. None of the four grounds of challenge succeeded.
2. The authorities did not establish a requirement to determine a precise five-year housing land supply figure or range in every case. The important question was whether the supply exceeded or fell below five years. A precise assessment was necessary only where the circumstances required it to determine the appeal. Here, the Inspector identified a material shortfall and the Secretary of State was entitled to proceed on that basis.
3. The Secretary of State was entitled to describe the shortfall as limited and to give significant weight to Policy 3.CO, while treating the scheme’s contribution to housing supply as significant. The decision letter gave intelligible and adequate reasons.
4. The Boorley Green decision did not exist when the Hamble decision was issued, so consistency in decision-taking could not apply to it. The Boorley Green Inspector’s report was not itself a decision. The Secretary of State had no imputed knowledge of every unpublished report produced within his Department, and the claimant had not shown that the report was a consideration which no reasonable decision-maker could have failed to take into account.
5. There was no material inconsistency in any event. Both decisions found that Eastleigh had less than five years’ supply and gave substantial or considerable weight to the housing contribution. Differences in the weight assigned to Policy 3.CO arose from the particular facts of the respective cases.

The judgment describes two underlying planning appeals before the Secretary of State. The Hamble appeal had been dismissed by the decision letter dated 9 November 2016. This judicial review claim under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was dismissed by the High Court.