Persimmon Homes (Thames Valley) Limited v Worthing Borough Council

Where emerging local-plan policies continue the relevant spatial strategy in an adopted plan, an inspector may address their shared conflict through the adopted policy without separately naming every draft policy, provided the decision letter fairly shows that the strategy and its weight were considered.

Under paragraph 176 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the requirement to give great weight to conserving and enhancing a National Park’s landscape and scenic beauty applies to development affecting its setting as well as development within it. An inspector need not use formulaic language, but reasons must show how identified harm was assessed under that principle and carried into the planning balance.

Persimmon appealed against the quashing of an inspector’s decision allowing its appeal against Worthing Borough Council’s refusal of outline permission for a mixed-use development, including 475 dwellings, on agricultural land outside the built-up area at Goring-by-Sea. The site lay within the setting of the South Downs National Park.

Lang J had allowed the council’s statutory challenge in [2022] EWHC 2044 (Admin). She held that the inspector had failed properly to consider draft Policies SS1 and SS4 of the emerging Worthing Local Plan and had misapplied national policy concerning the National Park’s setting.

The central questions were whether the inspector lawfully dealt with the emerging plan’s spatial strategy and whether his reasons showed a lawful application of paragraph 176 of the National Planning Policy Framework to harm affecting the National Park’s setting.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court held that the inspector had not erred in his treatment of the emerging local plan. Draft Policies SS1 and SS4 substantially replicated the adopted Core Strategy’s protection of undeveloped countryside outside the built-up area boundary. On a fair reading of the decision letter, the inspector had considered that continuing strategy and gave the conflict with it full weight through Policy 13. He was not required expressly to name Policy SS1 or duplicate the assessment. Draft Policy SS5 required distinct consideration because it proposed a new formal gap designation affecting the site.

2. The inspector’s treatment of the National Park was nevertheless legally inadequate. Paragraph 176 of the National Planning Policy Framework applies the great weight principle to effects on the setting of a National Park as well as to development within it. The degree of harm remains a matter of planning judgment. A decision-maker need not recite the words “great weight”, but the reasons must demonstrate that the principle was applied to actual harm found.

3. The inspector found a moderate adverse, though not significant, effect on views from within the National Park. His later conclusion that the setting and views would not be materially affected did not explain how that finding was reconciled with the policy. Nor did the decision letter show what weight, if any, was given to that harm in the planning balance. References to local visual receptors did not clearly remedy the omission.

4. The defect concerned a principal issue and created substantial doubt as to whether relevant national policy had been lawfully applied. The court could not conclude that the inspector would necessarily have reached the same decision without the error. The quashing order therefore stood.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed Persimmon’s appeal and upheld the quashing of the inspector’s decision.
• High Court, Planning Court: Lang J allowed the council’s challenge and quashed the inspector’s decision: [2022] EWHC 2044 (Admin).
• Planning inspector: allowed Persimmon’s appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the refusal of outline planning permission.