Eastleigh Borough Council v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government & Ors

On a statutory planning review, the court determines the legality of the inspector’s approach, not the planning merits. A site may be “well served” by walking where at least one safe and reasonably adequate walking route is available, even if a shorter alternative route is unsafe. The decision-maker need not assess whether residents are likely to use the unsafe route.

The existence of more than a five-year housing land supply does not necessarily increase the weight given to countryside policies. The past application of those policies may be materially relevant to their continuing currency. A policy may attract reduced weight where, read in context, it lacks the flexible and balanced approach of national policy. Whether a consideration is material, and the weight given to it, are generally matters of planning judgment.

Eastleigh Borough Council sought statutory review of an inspector’s decision allowing an appeal against refusal of planning permission for up to 70 dwellings at Satchell Lane, Hamble-le-Rice.

The Council challenged the decision on two grounds. First, it argued that the inspector had misinterpreted and misapplied Policy 100.T by accepting that the site was well served by walking despite finding that the shortest route to a school and health facilities was unsafe. Secondly, it challenged the inspector’s treatment of housing land supply, the past application and policy consistency of countryside policies, and the landscape harm arising from greenfield development.

1. Ground 1 dismissed. Policy 100.T required consideration of sustainable means of transport, including walking. Properly construed, it did not require every possible route from a development to be safe. The relevant question was whether there was a safe walking route, and a safe southern route was available to the facilities in issue.
2. The inspector was not required to assess whether residents, including schoolchildren, might choose the shorter unsafe northern route. The availability of an unsafe alternative did not deprive the site of adequate opportunities for walking. Whether the site was well served by walking was a matter of planning judgment. The inspector’s reasons were proper, adequate and intelligible.
3. Ground 2 dismissed. No statutory or policy rule required the inspector to give additional weight to countryside policies merely because the Council had more than a five-year housing land supply. The inspector was entitled to consider the housing position in the overall planning balance rather than when assessing the policies’ weight.
4. The history of applying the countryside policies, including permissions granted outside settlement boundaries to secure housing supply, was capable of being material to their currency. The inspector’s consideration of that history was rational.
5. The inspector correctly compared the specific local policies with the relevant national policy in context. He was entitled to conclude that the local policies lacked the flexible and balanced approach of the National Planning Policy Framework and therefore deserved reduced or limited weight. The precise weight was a matter of planning judgment.
6. The observation that the identified urbanising landscape harm would arise from any greenfield development contrary to the countryside policy was capable of being material and was not irrational.
7. The statutory review was dismissed.

First-instance statutory review. The inspector’s decision allowing the planning appeal was upheld and the review was dismissed.