Keith Langmead Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

In a statutory planning challenge, the court will not re-evaluate the planning merits or the weight given to competing considerations. Where the local planning authority lacks a five-year housing supply, the weighted balance in paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework applies. The decision-maker must assess adverse impacts and benefits against the Framework taken as a whole, including policies concerning housing supply and neighbourhood planning. A made neighbourhood plan does not have enhanced statutory status, but conflict with it may properly receive substantial weight under paragraphs 183–185 and 198. The assessment of weight remains a matter of planning judgment, subject only to irrationality. A recovered appeal is determined by the Secretary of State, who may substitute his own planning judgment for that of the Inspector. Reasons need address the principal important controversial issues, but need not answer every submission or rebut an Inspector’s report paragraph by paragraph.

The claimant applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the Secretary of State’s decision dismissing an appeal against refusal of outline permission for up to 100 dwellings at Yapton, West Sussex.

An Inspector recommended allowing the appeal. The Secretary of State recovered the appeal, disagreed with the Inspector and gave very substantial negative weight to conflict with the Yapton Neighbourhood Plan, while also recognising the benefits of housing and the absence of a five-year housing supply.

The challenge alleged misinterpretation and misapplication of the National Planning Policy Framework, failure to consider updated material and relevant neighbourhood-plan reservations, inconsistent weighting, irrationality and inadequate reasons.

1. Application dismissed. The Secretary of State’s decision was within the statutory powers and disclosed no material legal error, irrationality, failure to consider relevant matters or procedural unfairness.
2. Because the Council could not demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework applied and relevant housing-supply policies were out of date. The weighted balance in paragraph 14 therefore applied. That balance required the decision-maker to assess whether adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweighed benefits against the Framework taken as a whole.
3. The Framework taken as a whole included policies on sustainable development, housing supply and neighbourhood planning. Paragraph 7 did not exhaustively define the social dimension of sustainable development. Policies supporting local and neighbourhood planning could properly form part of that assessment.
4. Paragraph 198 did not give neighbourhood plans enhanced statutory status. Nor was it pointless repetition of paragraph 196. It emphasised the importance given by the Framework to neighbourhood plans, while remaining subject to the paragraph 14 balancing exercise.
5. The Secretary of State was entitled to give very substantial negative weight to conflict with Policy BB1 of the Yapton Neighbourhood Plan. The flexibility in Policy H1 could rationally justify significant weight for the neighbourhood plan’s housing policies despite the plan’s outdated housing evidence. The weight given to those matters was a planning judgment for the Secretary of State and was not irrational.
6. On a fair reading of the decision letter, the Secretary of State had considered the claimant’s later representations, the Inspector’s report and the Independent Examiner’s reservations. He was not required to conduct further investigations unless he became aware of a need to do so.
7. In a recovered appeal the Secretary of State is the primary decision-maker. He must consider the Inspector’s report but may reach a different planning judgment and is not required to provide a paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttal.
8. The statutory duty to give reasons required intelligible and adequate reasons addressing the principal important controversial issues. The decision letter met that standard. It was unnecessary to address every representation or refer to internal ministerial advice.