CPRE Surrey v Waverley Borough Council

A local planning authority may include a reasonable proportion of a neighbouring authority’s unmet housing need in its local plan. Assessing that need and allocating a proportion of it are exercises of planning judgment. Neither exercise requires mathematical exactness or a prescribed methodology.

An inspector may rely on imperfect or less recent evidence where that approach is rational. The court will intervene only for a distinct legal error, such as misunderstanding policy, irrationality or failing to apply reasonable judgment. An inspector need not recalculate the neighbouring authority’s objectively assessed need, obtain further evidence or recommend an early review where the available material sufficiently supports the conclusion. Reasons are adequate if they intelligibly explain how the principal controversial issues were resolved.

Waverley Borough Council adopted a local plan providing for 11,210 additional dwellings between 2013 and 2032. Following an inspector’s recommendation, this included 1,575 dwellings to address half of the unmet housing need identified in neighbouring Woking.

CPRE Surrey and POW Campaign Ltd challenged the plan under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The Planning Court dismissed their applications in [2018] EWHC 2969 (Admin).

The appellants contended that the inspector used unreliable or outdated evidence, irrationally selected a 50% contribution, failed to obtain further information, should have recommended an early review, and gave inadequate reasons. The central issue was whether his treatment of Woking’s unmet housing need disclosed an error of law.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The inspector lawfully concluded that Waverley should accommodate 83 dwellings per annum towards Woking’s unmet housing need. His conclusion fell comfortably within the range of reasonable planning judgment.

2. It is lawful in principle for a local planning authority to include a proportion of unmet housing need arising in another authority’s area. National policy contemplated that housing needs should be met across the housing market area and that a sound plan might need to accommodate unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where reasonable.

3. Assessing a neighbouring authority’s unmet need, and deciding what proportion another authority should accommodate, are inherently imprecise exercises of planning judgment. No uniform methodology or mathematical precision is required. The inspector could rationally use the 2015 strategic housing market assessment and Woking’s adopted core strategy, while allowing for later projections, possible additional delivery in Woking and a possible contribution from Guildford.

4. The different treatment of projections for Waverley and Woking was not legally inconsistent. The contexts and available evidence differed. The inspector was not conducting Woking’s examination and did not have to recalculate Woking’s objectively assessed need. His conclusion represented a composite judgment about both the amount of unmet need and Waverley’s appropriate share.

5. The inspector was under no obligation to seek further information. The acknowledged evidential uncertainties did not prevent a dependable conclusion on the material available. Nor was he required to recommend an early review. Section 17(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already required the council to keep its development documents under review, and regulation 10A of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 required five-yearly review.

6. The inspector’s reasons were clear, adequate and intelligible. They identified the apparent shortfall, relevant national policy, the relative constraints affecting the three boroughs, the evidential uncertainties and the considerations supporting a 50% contribution. A local-plan examination report may address a knowledgeable audience more succinctly than a planning appeal decision.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeals were dismissed by [2019] EWCA Civ 1826. The court upheld the inspector’s approach and the dismissal of the statutory challenges.
2. High Court, Planning Court: In [2018] EWHC 2969 (Admin), Ms Nathalie Lieven Q.C., sitting as a deputy High Court judge, dismissed the appellants’ applications under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. She also dismissed a separate challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, from which there was no appeal.