Wainhomes (North-West) Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government

On a statutory planning challenge, the court reviews legality rather than the planning merits. An inspector’s decision must give intelligible and adequate reasons on the principal controversial issues, and planning policy must be interpreted lawfully while its application remains a matter for the decision-maker. A material mistake of established fact may constitute an error of law where it was not caused by the claimant and materially affected the reasoning. A significant change for plan-review purposes is not confined to an increase in housing need. A substantial reduction in the housing requirement generated by the standard method may qualify, depending on the planning context. Reasons are inadequate where they fail to address the consequences of adopting that method for the distribution of housing underpinning a safeguarded-land policy.

The claimant challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 an Inspector’s dismissal of its section 78 appeal against refusal of outline planning permission for up to 100 dwellings. The dispute concerned whether a strategic housing policy had been reviewed for the purposes of paragraph 73 and footnote 37 of the National Planning Policy Framework, whether the standard method produced a significant change making that policy out of date, and whether the resulting housing distribution made a safeguarded-land policy out of date. The Secretary of State conceded the challenge on the latter issue.

1. The claim was allowed and the Inspector’s decision was quashed. The matter required redetermination in light of the court’s conclusions.
2. The court applied the established principles governing a statutory planning challenge. Decision letters are construed flexibly, but must contain intelligible and adequate reasons addressing the principal important controversial issues. The court determines the meaning of planning policy, while the application of policy and the weight given to material considerations remain matters for the decision-maker. Section 288 does not permit a review of planning merits.
3. Ground 5 succeeded. The Inspector failed to grapple with the claimant’s argument that applying the standard method would produce a radically different distribution of housing between the Central Lancashire authorities. That distribution underpinned the quantity and location of safeguarded land in Local Plan Policy G3. Comparing the standard-method distribution with an emerging, adjusted Housing Study was not an adequate answer. Reliance on the absence of a relevant situation in the Framework or PPG did not explain why the detailed point did not render Policy G3 out of date.
4. Ground 1 also succeeded. The Inspector had wrongly stated that Core Strategy Policy 4 was not specifically mentioned in the committee reports. That was an established and objectively verifiable fact, not caused by the claimant, and it formed part of the Inspector’s reasoning. The error therefore satisfied the requirements for a mistake-of-fact challenge. The Inspector also failed adequately to explain why a review of the whole of Policy 4 was necessary when footnote 37 concerned the strategic policy containing the housing requirement in Policy 4(a), or why the MOU did not constitute such a review.
5. Ground 3 failed. The PPG’s examples of significant change did not exhaust the circumstances capable of making a plan out of date. A greatly reduced local housing need figure generated by the standard method could amount to a significant change. The Inspector was entitled to reach that planning judgment. Grounds 2 and 4 disclosed no material error: the Inspector’s reasoning was to be read as a whole, and describing the claimant’s arguments as convincing did not make them decisive.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The claimant challenged the Inspector’s decision under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The claim was allowed on grounds 1 and 5; the decision was quashed for redetermination. Grounds 2, 3 and 4 failed.