Mid Suffolk District Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 930 (Admin)
Seedlings Property Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
19 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3371 (Admin)
High Court
A company's application to build houses was rejected. A judge agreed the decision-maker made a mistake in applying the rules but rejected other complaints. The case will now go to a full hearing to decide if the houses should be built.
Key Facts
- •Seedlings Property Limited applied for outline planning permission for 14 self-build dwellings.
- •The application was refused, and the appeal was dismissed by an inspector.
- •The claimant sought judicial review of the inspector's decision.
- •The claim had four grounds; Ground 1 was abandoned.
- •The case concerned the application of the 'tilted balance' test in the National Planning Policy Framework.
- •The case involved the interpretation of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s.288.
- •A key issue was the treatment of 480 units at Site Number 166 as deliverable housing units.
- •The case involved the assessment of the consistency of the inspector's weighting of different factors.
Legal Principles
Tilted balance test in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) para.11(d)
National Planning Policy Framework
Application of Hillside Parks Limited v Snowdonia National Park Authority [2022] UKSC 30 in determining deliverability of housing units.
Hillside Parks Limited v Snowdonia National Park Authority [2022] UKSC 30
Judicial review of planning decisions under s.288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s.288
Outcomes
Permission granted on Ground 2.
The inspector misstated the tilted balance test in para 11(d) of the Framework, and there was an arguable error in failing to determine if relevant policies were out of date.
Permission refused on Ground 3.
The court accepted the defendant's arguments that the inspector's approach to the 480 units at Site Number 166 was correct and did not disclose any arguable error of law.
Permission refused on Ground 4.
The court found that the inspector's attributions of weight were not inconsistent and represented an exercise of planning judgment.
Similar Cases
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)
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1916 (Admin)
Widdington Parish Council, R (on the application of) v Uttlesford District Council
[2023] EWHC 1709 (Admin)