Williams, R (on the application of) v Northumberland County Council

Planning policies must be interpreted objectively, by reference to their language and proper context, and the development plan must be read as a whole. A general policy supporting small-scale development does not automatically impose a numerical limit on rural exception sites where the specific exception-site policy contains no such limitation. The court must respect the planning authority’s evaluative judgment unless the decision is irrational or unlawful. Evidence of affordable housing need may properly include information from registered providers, housing assessments, housing statistics and local knowledge. A decision is not irrational merely because an emerging plan adopts a different definition or limitation for future applications.

The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant council’s decision to grant outline planning permission for 20 dwellings, all affordable housing, on land outside a settlement boundary in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The surviving grounds concerned whether the council had unlawfully failed to apply a small-scale limitation under the neighbourhood plan, and whether it irrationally concluded that there was an identified local need for affordable housing. Permission was granted on both grounds following earlier permission decisions. The central issues were the proper construction of the neighbourhood plan and the rationality of the evidence-based assessment of local housing need.

1. The claim was dismissed. The planning permission was not quashed.
2. The proper approach to interpreting development plans was established by Tesco Stores Limited v Dundee City Council [2012] UK13. Planning policies must be interpreted objectively according to their language and read in context. The plan must be considered as a whole, but broad policy provisions require planning judgment and are challengeable on public law grounds only where the decision is irrational or perverse.
3. Policy 9(d) of the North Northumberland Coast Neighbourhood Plan supported rural exception sites for affordable housing outside settlement boundaries where they had no negative impact on sensitive settlement edges. It contained no numerical or “small-scale” limitation. The definition of small-scale development in the explanatory text to Policy 1 could not be carried across into Policy 9 by implication, particularly because Policy 9 used different language and was intended to support development outside settlement boundaries.
4. The emerging local plan, including its proposed limitation for small rural exception sites, attracted only limited weight. The fact that it adopted different terms did not make the decision irrational or require the matter to be referred back to the committee.
5. The council had rationally assessed affordable housing need. The Report and Addendum, read fairly, focused on need rather than demand alone. The evidence included registered-provider information, housing statistics, housing-need material, evidence concerning other sites and the housing officer’s local knowledge. That evidence provided a sufficient basis for the decision, which was neither unlawful nor irrational.

This was a first-instance judicial review. Permission was granted on Ground 3 by HHJ Kline and on Ground 1 on renewal. The High Court dismissed the claim and declined to quash the planning decision.