Bredhurst Parish Council v Maidstone Borough Council & Ors

At the permission stage of a statutory planning review, strategic infrastructure may have a reasonable prospect of delivery without a precise percentage assessment of likelihood. The assessment may consider identifiable alternative options and their interaction. Reasons must be read fairly and as a whole. Where an inspector identifies the relevant options, acknowledges the disadvantages of a fallback solution and explains the planning judgment reached, forensic disagreement with the reasoning will not establish an arguable public-law error.

The Parish Council applied for permission for statutory review under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The challenge concerned the inspector’s decision on the statutory soundness of Maidstone’s Local Plan, specifically the allocation for Lidsing Garden Village and its phase-one East West Link Road.

The Council alleged errors in applying national planning policy and guidance on deliverability, inadequate reasons, and an irrational treatment of the Ham Lane fallback route. A renewed application for permission was before the court.

1. Application dismissed. The renewed application did not disclose an arguable claim with a realistic prospect of success.
2. The inspector had addressed statutory soundness under section 20(5)(b) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and had given reasons to an informed audience. His report had to be read fairly and as a whole.
3. The Planning Practice Guidance requirement for a “reasonable prospect” of strategic infrastructure delivery refined the National Planning Policy Framework requirement that the cross-boundary matter be “dealt with”. A realistic assessment did not require a precise percentage or exact linguistic description of likelihood.
4. The preferred route and the Ham Lane fallback were linked. Although Ham Lane was sub-optimal and involved some lost benefits, it remained a deliverable alternative. Its existence could also affect Medway’s position concerning the preferred route.
5. The inspector had recognised the disadvantages of Ham Lane, referred to the relevant sensitivity-testing material, explained the significance of connecting to Junction 4 of the M2, and treated detailed interventions as premature. There was no arguable flaw in logic or reasoning.
6. The matter involved a planning judgment. In the absence of misdirection, unreasonableness or legally inadequate reasons, it was open to the inspector to find the allocation deliverable.

Permission for statutory review had previously been refused on the papers by Sir Peter Lane. The renewed application was dismissed.