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
19 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 3284 (Admin)
High Court
A company challenged the approval of a new housing development. The judge reviewed the decision and agreed with the original assessment, saying the reasons were clear and the rules were applied correctly. The main dispute was over how strictly some rules should be followed, and the judge said that a reasonable approach had been taken.
Key Facts
- •Dorchester Living Ltd challenged the planning permission granted to Richborough Estates for 230 dwellings at Heyford Park.
- •The challenge focused on three grounds related to infrastructure, a planning condition on a nearby development (Pye Scheme), and the application of spatial planning policies.
- •The case involved interpretation of Policy PV5 (design and place-shaping principles) and Policy BSC1 (spatial approach to growth) within the Cherwell Local Plan 2015.
- •The main dispute concerned the adequacy of pedestrian and cycle links, particularly a proposed east-west link to Larsen Road.
Legal Principles
Interpretation of planning policies requires a focus on the overall objectives and avoidance of overly strict interpretations that would not be reflected in the policy's wording.
Policy PV5 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2015 and the Judge's interpretation thereof.
Planning conditions should be interpreted objectively according to their clear and express wording. The intention of a condition must be ascertained from the language used, not from assumptions or implications.
Interpretation of planning condition 4 imposed on the Pye scheme developer.
In assessing the planning balance, all relevant policies must be considered, and the weight attributed to potential harm from non-compliance must be clear and consistent throughout the decision-making process.
Application of Policy BSC1 regarding spatial distribution of housing and its interaction with Policy ESD1.
Outcomes
The application for permission for statutory review on all three grounds was dismissed.
The Judge found that the inspector's reasoning was clear, reasonable, and legally sound. The challenges failed to demonstrate arguable grounds for misinterpretation, unreasonable application, or legally inadequate reasons.
The inspector's interpretation of Policy PV5 was upheld.
The Judge held that the inspector correctly applied the policy's focus on maximizing the potential for walkable neighborhoods, rather than requiring every conceivable link to be included.
The inspector's interpretation of planning condition 4 (Pye Scheme) was upheld.
The Judge found the condition's language to be clear, focusing on providing access to the western boundary, not necessarily securing a route through third-party land to Larsen Road.
The inspector's handling of Policy BSC1 was upheld.
The Judge clarified the distinction between development inside and outside identified sustainable locations, concluding that the inspector appropriately addressed the harm associated with non-compliance with Policy ESD1, which encompassed the concerns raised under BSC1.
Similar Cases
Timothy James House & Anor v Waverley Borough Council & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3011 (Admin)
Bedford Park Developments v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2337 (Admin)
Vistry Homes Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2088 (Admin)
Bredhurst Parish Council v Maidstone Borough Council & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2373 (Admin)