Seedlings Property Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3371 (Admin)
Mid Suffolk District Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
23 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 930 (Admin)
High Court
A council challenged a decision to allow building houses outside a village. The judge said the person who made the decision (the inspector) had the right to weigh things up, even if it meant going against the local plan. The judge agreed with the inspector's decision, saying there were good reasons for allowing the houses to be built despite objections.
Key Facts
- •Mid-Suffolk District Council (Claimant) challenged a planning inspector's decision allowing Gladman Developments Ltd's (2nd Defendant) appeal for 210 dwellings in Thurston, Suffolk.
- •The development was contrary to the existing development plan but the Inspector allowed the appeal based on material considerations.
- •The Claimant argued the Inspector misinterpreted Policy SP03 of the emerging Joint Local Plan (EJLP) and erred in his balancing exercise under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
- •The Inspector considered the 10.88-year housing land supply, the advanced stage of the EJLP (though with significant changes and unknown outcomes), and the benefits of the development (affordable housing, highways improvements, etc.).
- •The Claimant argued the Inspector gave inadequate reasoning regarding Policy SP03, failed to account for material considerations, and misinterpreted paragraph 219 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
Legal Principles
Planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (section 38(6) of the 2004 Act).
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
The weight given to material considerations is a matter for the decision-maker's judgment, subject to public law errors.
Tesco Stores Limited v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] 1 WLR 759
Inspector's decisions are construed flexibly; reasons must be intelligible and adequate but need only address principal controversial issues.
Bloor Homes East Midlands Ltd. v SSCLG [2014] EWHC 754 (Admin)
The tilted balance in the NPPF applies when housing policies are not up-to-date, favouring permission unless adverse impacts significantly outweigh benefits.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 11
Existing policies may carry weight despite being out-of-date, depending on consistency with the NPPF (paragraph 219 of the NPPF).
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 219
Outcomes
The claim was dismissed.
The court found no legal error in the Inspector's approach. The Inspector's decision was considered a matter of planning judgment, and the court rejected the Claimant's arguments regarding the interpretation of Policy SP03, the weight given to the EJLP, and the application of section 38(6) of the 2004 Act.
Similar Cases
Bedford Park Developments v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2337 (Admin)
Timothy James House & Anor v Waverley Borough Council & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3011 (Admin)
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1916 (Admin)
Dorchester Living Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors
[2024] EWHC 3284 (Admin)