Edith Weston Parish Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor

A planning decision affected by an error of law need not be quashed where the court can say that the outcome would inevitably have been the same without the error. The assessment remains one for the court, while preserving planning judgment for the decision-maker.

The statutory plan-led system requires priority to be given to the development plan, but does not prescribe a rigid two-stage method. The weight given to conflict with relevant policies is a matter of planning judgment. NPPF paragraph 14 is engaged only where a neighbourhood plan contains both policies and allocations meeting its identified housing requirement in full.

The claimant sought planning statutory review of an inspector’s decision allowing an appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and granting outline permission for up to 62 dwellings in the countryside at Edith Weston.

The inspector mistakenly treated the Edith Weston Neighbourhood Plan 2023–2041 as an emerging plan and material consideration, although it had become part of the development plan five days before the decision. The claimant also argued that the inspector should have applied paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The issues were whether the first error could have affected the outcome and whether the neighbourhood plan contained the allocations required by paragraph 14.

1. Ground 1 dismissed. The inspector had made an error by treating the Edith Weston Neighbourhood Plan as an emerging plan rather than as part of the development plan. The court nevertheless had to ask whether the appeal would inevitably have been allowed without that error.
2. The plan-led statutory scheme gives the development plan priority, while requiring other material considerations to be weighed. It does not impose a universal two-stage exercise. The decision-maker must establish whether the proposal accords with the development plan as a whole. The weight given to policy conflict is a matter of planning judgment.
3. Reading the decision letter fairly as a whole, the inspector recognised the advanced status and relevant policy conflicts of the neighbourhood plan. The conflicts with the neighbourhood plan and the existing development plan concerned the same underlying spatial strategy. In light of the acute housing land supply shortfall, the conflict carried only moderate weight, while the delivery of housing carried high-order benefit weight. The court held that the result would inevitably have been the same even if the neighbourhood plan had been given statutory development-plan status.
4. Ground 2 dismissed. Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires a neighbourhood plan to contain both policies and allocations meeting its identified housing requirement in full. Policy EW-SG02, concerning design principles for the redevelopment of the Officers’ Mess, informed reserved matters but did not constitute a local-plan allocation. Paragraph 14 was therefore not engaged.
5. The statutory review challenge failed and the inspector’s decision stood. Consequential matters were to be agreed or addressed by written submissions within 14 days.