WORTHING BOROUGH COUNCIL v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR LEVELLING UP, HOUSING AND COMMUNITIES & Anor

On a statutory review of a planning appeal decision, an inspector must assess all material policies in an emerging local plan and explain the weight given to any conflict with them. This duty is not discharged merely because an adopted policy addresses related subject matter, where the emerging plan reflects a later policy balance and raises a distinct issue.

Where development affects views from a National Park, the decision-maker must have regard to the statutory purpose of conserving and enhancing its natural beauty. Under paragraph 176 of the Framework, assessed harm must be given great weight and entered into the overall planning balance. A finding of moderate adverse visual harm is inconsistent with a conclusion that there are no adverse effects unless the inconsistency is explained.

The Council challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 an inspector’s decision allowing an appeal against refusal of outline permission for a mixed-use development of up to 475 dwellings at Chatsmore Farm, north-west of Goring Station.

The challenge concerned the inspector’s treatment of the emerging Worthing Local Plan, including its spatial strategy and countryside policy, the reasons for the absence of a specific gap designation in the adopted plan, and the effect of the development on the setting and views of the South Downs National Park.

1. Ground 1 failed. The inspector’s reasons concerning the settlement gap and Policy SS5 of the emerging local plan were intelligible and adequate. He identified the physical and visual gap, accepted that the development would diminish separation, and explained that its location and the remaining undeveloped land meant that separation would not be materially undermined.
2. Ground 2 succeeded. Policies SS1 and SS4 were material considerations. They formed part of a relatively advanced emerging plan and embodied a recent spatial strategy which balanced current housing need against environmental protection. They were not merely another expression of adopted Policy 13. The inspector therefore had to assess the proposal against them, identify any conflict, and give that conflict appropriate weight in the planning balance. His omission of any proper consideration, or adequate reasons for his treatment, was an error of law. The court could not apply the Simplex approach because it could not safely conclude that the outcome would necessarily have been the same.
3. Ground 3 failed. The historical reasons why the adopted plan contained no specific strategic-gap policy were background information, not a material consideration which the inspector was obliged to take into account. Interpretation of development-plan policy should ordinarily begin and end with the plan and incorporated material.
4. Ground 4 succeeded. The inspector accepted that the development would cause a clearly perceptible change and moderate adverse harm to views from the National Park. He nevertheless concluded that there were no material effects and omitted the harm from the overall planning balance. That was irrational, inadequately reasoned, and contrary to paragraph 176 of the Framework, which required the assessed harm to receive great weight. The inspector also failed properly to discharge the duty under section 11A of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, because he did not have regard to the statutory purpose of conserving and enhancing the National Park when undertaking the balance.
5. The claim was allowed on Grounds 2 and 4. The inspector’s decision was quashed.

This was a first-instance statutory review in the High Court under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The court quashed the inspector’s decision on Grounds 2 and 4.