Wokingham Borough Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government & Anor

In a challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the court will not reassess planning merits or the weight given to competing considerations. An inspector may treat settlement-boundary policies as not fully up-to-date where they derive from an outdated housing requirement, even though their underlying aims remain consistent with national policy. The weight given to the resulting policy conflict remains a matter of planning judgment. Housing land supply beyond the minimum five-year requirement may be relevant when assessing whether settlement-boundary policies should receive reduced weight. The inspector must read and explain the evidence fairly, but is not required to resolve a dispute in detail where the parties have presented inadequate or late evidence. The claim was dismissed.

Wokingham Borough Council applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash an inspector’s decision granting outline planning permission for up to 55 dwellings and associated Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace at Parklands, Spencers Wood.

The Council challenged the inspector’s decision to give significant rather than full weight to conflicts with development-plan policies restricting development outside settlement limits. It alleged inadequate reasons, reliance on an immaterial consideration, failure to consider whether the limits impeded five-year housing supply, and procedural unfairness.

The central issues were whether the inspector’s planning judgment was legally rational and adequately reasoned, and whether the inquiry process afforded the Council a fair opportunity to address development outside settlement boundaries.

1. The claim was dismissed. The inspector’s decision was not unlawful and the question of relief did not arise.
2. Under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the court applies ordinary judicial-review principles. The exercise of planning judgment and the weight given to material considerations are for the decision-maker, not the court. Judicial intervention is limited to errors of law, irrationality, failure to consider relevant matters or procedural impropriety.
3. The inspector’s reasons were intelligible and adequate when read fairly and as a whole. They explained why the development limits were out-of-date because they derived from the outdated housing requirement in CP17, while the underlying aims of CP9, CP11 and CC02 remained generally consistent with national policy. The inspector was entitled to give the policy conflict significant rather than full weight.
4. The inspector did not treat the policies as out-of-date merely because of their age. The outdated housing requirement was a substantive and relevant consideration. The weight assigned to that consideration and to the policies was a matter of planning judgment.
5. The cases concerning development outside settlement boundaries were fact-sensitive and did not establish a binding rule that such permissions could only be relevant if strict application of the boundaries would prevent compliance with the minimum five-year housing-supply requirement. An inspector may consider wider housing needs and supply, since significantly boosting housing supply is a Framework objective.
6. The evidence at the inquiry was insufficient to permit a detailed assessment of the number of sites outside the limits. The inspector was entitled to rely on the unchallenged Lambs Lane decision and was not unfair to the Council. The Council had addressed the issue in evidence and submissions and could have sought an adjournment if further evidence was required.

This was a first-instance claim under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The claim challenged an inspector’s decision allowing a section 78 planning appeal and granting planning permission.