Chichester District Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government & Anor

Paragraph 198 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 reflects, but neither enlarges, the statutory presumption in favour of the development plan as a whole nor elevates a neighbourhood plan above other components of that plan.

A proposal unsupported by any particular policy may still conflict with a development plan where that is the natural and necessary inference from its comprehensive strategy. The question depends on the wording, objectives and supporting text of the particular policies.

Where complementary housing policies are deliberately divided between a local plan and a neighbourhood plan, conflict with restrictive local-plan policies does not itself establish conflict with a neighbourhood plan which contains no policy governing the proposed category of development.

Beechcroft Land Ltd sought permission for up to 34 dwellings on an unallocated site outside the Southbourne settlement boundary. An inspector found conflict with restrictive policies in the local plan, but no conflict with the policies of the neighbourhood plan. Although the proposal did not accord with that plan's aim concerning the location of housing, the inspector allowed the planning appeal after applying the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Chichester District Council challenged the decision under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Upper Tribunal Judge Grubb, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, dismissed the claim in [2018] EWHC 2386 (Admin).

The council appealed. The central issue was whether the inspector had misconstrued, misapplied or failed to apply paragraph 198 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, under which permission should not normally be granted where an application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan brought into force.

1. Appeal dismissed. Lindblom LJ, with whom Baker LJ and Sir Bernard Rix agreed, held that the inspector had lawfully concluded that the proposal conflicted with Policies 2 and 45 of the local plan but not with Policies 1 and 2 of the neighbourhood plan.

2. The duty in section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 creates a statutory presumption in favour of the development plan in its entirety. Where an adopted local plan and a made neighbourhood plan both apply, their relevant policies must be considered together. The interpretation of policy is ultimately for the court, but its application is a matter of planning judgment subject to review on conventional irrationality grounds.

3. Paragraph 198 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 was clear. Its presumption against permission where an application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan reflected the section 38(6) presumption. It neither modified or enlarged that presumption nor elevated the neighbourhood plan within the development plan.

4. The housing strategy for Southbourne was comprehensive but deliberately divided between two documents. The neighbourhood plan fixed settlement boundaries and allocated housing sites. The local plan retained the restrictive development-control policies governing unallocated sites outside those boundaries. The neighbourhood plan expressly did not purport to contain all land-use policy for the parish and contained no windfall or countryside-development policy.

5. A proposal may conflict with a development plan despite neither complying with nor offending the express terms of a particular policy. Such conflict may follow by natural and necessary inference from a comprehensive strategy read as a whole. Whether it does depends on the wording, objectives and supporting text of the particular plan. The plans considered in Crane and Gladman Developments Ltd v Canterbury City Council differed materially because their relevant housing strategies supported the necessary negative inference.

6. Here no inference was required. The proposal was expressly contrary to the local-plan policies governing countryside development. Its lack of support in the neighbourhood plan, and inconsistency with that plan's aim, did not convert the local-plan conflict into a separate conflict with neighbourhood-plan policies. The inspector correctly avoided counting the same conflict twice and lawfully concluded that other material considerations overcame the development-plan conflict.

7. In any event, relief would have been withheld. Even had the inspector wrongly failed to find conflict with the neighbourhood plan, his decision would inevitably have been the same.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The council's appeal was dismissed unanimously. The court upheld the inspector's interpretation and application of paragraph 198 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. Administrative Court, Planning Court: Upper Tribunal Judge Grubb, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, dismissed the council's section 288 challenge to the inspector's decision: [2018] EWHC 2386 (Admin).

3. Planning inspector: The inspector allowed Beechcroft Land Ltd's section 78 appeal against the refusal of planning permission for up to 34 dwellings.