Bedford Park Developments v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2337 (Admin)
Cora Homes Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
17 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2617 (Admin)
High Court
A company appealed a decision to refuse planning permission. The judge agreed with the company on one point: the inspector made a mistake by using the wrong planning rule. This mistake changed the final decision, so the judge overturned the refusal on that point. The judge didn't agree with the company on other points, saying the inspector followed the rules correctly in those areas.
Key Facts
- •Cora Homes Ltd challenged an inspector's decision to dismiss its planning appeal for 45 dwellings (40% affordable) in Flore, Northamptonshire.
- •The appeal site was outside Flore's settlement boundary.
- •The inspector found the development would cause harm to the area's character and appearance, conflicting with the development plan.
- •The challenge was based on six grounds, with permission granted on four.
- •The Statement of Common Ground (SOCG) between the claimant and West Northamptonshire Council stated the site was sustainable.
Legal Principles
Planning appeal decisions must be intelligible and adequate, explaining the conclusions on principal controversial issues. The inspector's reasoning should not give rise to substantial doubt about legal errors.
St Modwen Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] EWCA Civ 1643
Planning policies are not statutory provisions and should be interpreted objectively. Misinterpreting or misapplying policy constitutes a material consideration error.
Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012] PTSR 983
Procedural fairness requires appellants to know the case they must meet and have a reasonable opportunity to address it. Departing from a SOCG requires giving the other party a chance to respond.
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government v Hopkins Developments Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 470
In assessing whether a planning proposal conflicts with the development plan, it is permissible to look at the overall strategy, even if no single policy directly prohibits the proposal.
Chichester District Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2019] EWCA Civ 1640
Outcomes
Ground 1 (misinterpretation of development plan policies) rejected.
The inspector correctly understood and applied the policies, including the dependency of Neighbourhood Plan policy F2 on Core Strategy policy R1.
Ground 2 (misinterpretation of Neighbourhood Plan policy F4) allowed.
The inspector wrongly applied policy F4 (rural exception sites) to a larger-scale development not fitting its definition. Policy F4 was immaterial to the decision.
Ground 4 (procedural unfairness) rejected.
The inspector's conclusions on service access did not contradict the SOCG; the issue was raised by the Second Defendant and third parties, giving the Claimant an opportunity to respond.
Ground 5 (failure to consider evidence on housing need) rejected.
The inspector's reasoning was sufficient; he considered the Claimant's evidence but wasn't obligated to address it exhaustively.
Claim allowed on Ground 2 only.
The court found that the inspector's reliance on the immaterial policy F4 significantly influenced the decision; it could not be confidently asserted that the outcome would have been the same without this error.
Similar Cases
Mid Suffolk District Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 930 (Admin)
Dorchester Living Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors
[2024] EWHC 3284 (Admin)
Norton St. Philip Parish Council v Mendip District Council
[2022] EWHC 3432 (Admin)
Seedlings Property Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3371 (Admin)