Cora Homes Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor

In a planning challenge under section 288, planning policies must be interpreted objectively, but their application and weight remain matters for the inspector. A neighbourhood plan policy supporting housing outside a village boundary may operate consistently with, and remain subject to, wider spatial-strategy requirements.

A policy directed specifically to rural exception sites does not automatically govern a different mixed market and affordable housing proposal. Regard to an immaterial policy is an error of law where the inspector gives it significant weight and it cannot safely be said that the same decision would necessarily have been reached without that error.

The claimant challenged an inspector’s dismissal of its section 78 planning appeal concerning outline permission for up to 45 dwellings, including affordable housing, near Flore, Northamptonshire. The challenge concerned the interpretation and application of policies in the Core Strategy, Local Plan and Flore Neighbourhood Plan, procedural fairness, and the adequacy of reasons concerning alternative housing sites.

Permission was granted on grounds 1, 2, 4 and 5. The central questions were whether the inspector had misunderstood policies F2 and F4 of the Neighbourhood Plan, acted unfairly in assessing access to services, and adequately considered evidence about the ability to meet local housing need within the settlement.

1. Ground 1 dismissed. The inspector correctly understood the development plan. Policy F2.2 of the Neighbourhood Plan, although extending support to specified categories of housing outside Flore, remained subject to the relevant requirements of policy R1 of the Core Strategy. Those requirements were not displaced by the words “In line with” policy R1. The inspector’s reasons for finding conflict with policies S1 and R1 of the Core Strategy and SP1 and RA2 of the Local Plan were intelligible and adequate.
2. Ground 2 upheld. Policy F4 was a self-contained policy applying the rural exception site concept to Flore. Paragraph F4.2 concerned open-market housing included within a rural exception site under paragraph F4.1. It was not a general restriction on the mix or scale of all housing proposals outside the settlement boundary. The proposed development was not a rural exception site, so policy F4 was immaterial and the inspector was wrong to treat the scheme as breaching it.
3. The error was material. The inspector had attributed significant weight to the alleged conflict with policy F4 in the planning balance. It could not safely be said that, without that immaterial consideration, he would necessarily have dismissed the appeal.
4. Ground 4 dismissed. The statement of common ground agreed the existence and accessibility of Flore’s facilities, but did not agree that those facilities would meet the day-to-day needs of future residents. The inspector was entitled to assess that separate question under policy S1(D). The claimant knew or ought to have realised that the issue arose and had a reasonable opportunity to address it.
5. Ground 5 dismissed. The inspector’s conclusion that the housing need might be met on alternative sites was adequately explained. He was not required to address every item of evidence expressly, and there was no basis to infer that updated sales schedules submitted during the hearing had been ignored.

The claim was allowed on ground 2 only.

• Inspector’s decision: The inspector dismissed the claimant’s section 78 appeal against refusal of outline planning permission.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The claim under section 288 was allowed on ground 2 only. Grounds 1, 4 and 5 were rejected.