Dorchester Living Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors
[2024] EWHC 3284 (Admin)
Bredhurst Parish Council v Maidstone Borough Council & Ors
17 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2373 (Admin)
High Court
A group challenged a plan for a new town's road. The judge agreed with the government's decision because the plan had a backup route, even if it wasn't ideal. The judge said the government gave good enough reasons for its choice.
Key Facts
- •Bredhurst Parish Council challenged the planning inspector's decision regarding the soundness of the Maidstone Local Plan's Lidsing Garden Village site allocation, specifically concerning the East West Link Road.
- •The dispute centered on the inspector's assessment of the Link Road's deliverability, considering two potential routes: a preferred route through land owned by Medway Council and a fallback route using Ham Lane.
- •The inspector rejected arguments that Medway Council's previous refusal to relinquish the land rendered the project unsound.
- •The Parish Council argued the inspector's reasoning was unlawful, unreasonable, and inadequately explained.
Legal Principles
Lawfulness, reasonableness, and legal adequacy of reasoning of a planning inspector's decision on statutory soundness (Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s.20(5)(b)).
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s.113
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) §35c requirement for a positive conclusion on deliverability, underpinned by certainty and effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) §35c
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) §§59-60 requirement for an assessment of the likelihood of delivering a strategic infrastructure project, including consideration of alternative options.
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) §§59-60
Requirement for legally adequate reasons in planning decisions; assessment of reasonableness and flaws in logic (R (Law Society) v Lord Chancellor [2018] EWHC 2094 (Admin)).
R (Law Society) v Lord Chancellor [2018] EWHC 2094 (Admin)
In planning appeals, it is open to the inspector to find a development deliverable, provided there is no misdirection, unreasonableness, or inadequate reasoning (Oxted Residential Ltd v Tandridge DC [2016] EWCA Civ 414).
Oxted Residential Ltd v Tandridge DC [2016] EWCA Civ 414
The PPG's 'reasonable prospect' requirement qualifies the NPPF §35c 'dealt with' principle. A reasonable prospect from identifiable options can satisfy the requirement even for cross-boundary strategic matters.
Mead Realisations Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2024] EWHC 279 (Admin)
Outcomes
The application for permission for statutory review was dismissed.
The court found the inspector's reasoning was lawful, reasonable, and adequately explained. The inspector considered the relevant policies (NPPF and PPG), addressed the concerns raised by objectors, and provided sufficient reasons for his decision, including the existence of a fallback option and the potential impact of other developments on Medway Council's position.
Similar Cases
Christine Pratt & Anor, R (on the application of) v Exeter City Council
[2024] EWHC 185 (Admin)
Timothy James House & Anor v Waverley Borough Council & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3011 (Admin)
Mid Suffolk District Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 930 (Admin)
Clifton Neighbourhood Forum v Calderdale Council
[2024] EWHC 1175 (Admin)