New Forest National Park Authority v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor

A planning inspector may find that development conflicts with a specific development-plan policy, yet conclude that it accords with the development plan read as a whole. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 does not prescribe the weight to be given to a policy conflict.

The strengthened duty under section 11A(1A) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 requires the decision-maker to seek to further National Park purposes. For the conservation purpose, that duty may be discharged by finding that development will leave the Park’s natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage unharmed. Express reference to the duty is unnecessary where the reasons show substantive compliance.

The claimant local planning authority sought statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 of an inspector’s decision allowing an appeal against refusal of permission for a first-floor rear extension to an existing dwelling in the New Forest National Park.

The inspector found that the proposal exceeded the floorspace limit in policy DP36 and exacerbated conflict with that policy. He nevertheless gave the conflict very little weight, found no adverse effect on local character or housing mix, and concluded that the proposal accorded with the development plan read as a whole. The claimant alleged misinterpretation of DP36 and breach of the strengthened National Park duty under section 11A(1A) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

1. Ground 1 dismissed. Policy DP36 required the proposed extension to be assessed principally by applying its floorspace limits. The inspector correctly calculated the cumulative increase from the dwelling’s July 1982 floorspace and clearly found conflict with DP36. It was unnecessary to consider the exceptional-circumstances provision because neither party contended that such circumstances existed.
2. Conflict with one development-plan policy did not determine whether the proposal accorded with the development plan as a whole. Under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the inspector had to recognise the plan’s priority, but the weight given to the conflict remained a matter of planning judgment. The inspector was entitled to assess the proposal against the purposes of DP36 and SP17, including local character, suburbanisation and housing stock.
3. Ground 2 dismissed. Section 11A(1A) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 imposed a strengthened duty to seek to further the statutory purposes. Where conflict with those purposes was found, the decision-maker had to consider and explain whether permission was nevertheless justified, including relevant mitigation, conditions or obligations.
4. The duty was substantive rather than formal. The inspector’s omission of an express reference to section 11A(1A) was not decisive. His findings showed that he had addressed conservation, including the absence of harm to local character and landscape, protection of bats by condition, and the absence of risk to an adjacent SSSI. Following South Lakeland District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1992] 2 AC 141, leaving protected characteristics unharmed could satisfy the conservation limb. Separate discussion of public understanding and enjoyment was unnecessary where no meaningful effect was advanced.
5. The claim was dismissed.

This was a first-instance statutory review in the High Court. Lang J granted permission to bring the claim on 10 July 2024. The claim challenged an inspector’s decision dated 8 April 2024 allowing a planning appeal and granting permission.