Key Facts
- •Swindon Borough Council (SBC) challenged an inspector's decision to grant planning permission to Danescourt (PCDF IV Swindon) LLP for 220 dwellings, commercial facilities, and a primary school in Foxbridge.
- •The application was refused by SBC due to insufficient infrastructure contributions and non-compliance with the Swindon Borough Local Plan 2026.
- •The inspector allowed the appeal, finding that the developer's contributions, while short of SBC's demands, were viable and the overall benefits outweighed the shortcomings.
- •SBC's challenge was based on the inspector's alleged misinterpretation of local plan policies regarding infrastructure contributions, precedent setting, and the necessity of a primary school.
Legal Principles
Planning permission and appeals must be decided in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 70(2) and 79(4); Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, section 38(6); Hopkins Homes Ltd v SSCLG [2017] UKSC 37
Planning policies must be interpreted objectively and in accordance with their language and context; misapplication amounts to an error of law.
Tesco Stores v Dundee CC [2012] UKSC 13
Inspectors' decisions are to be construed flexibly; reasons must be intelligible and adequate on key issues; weight attached to material considerations is for the decision-maker unless irrational.
St Modwen Developments Ltd v SSCLG [2018] EWCA Civ 1643
Consistency in decision-making is important, but like cases need not always be decided alike.
St Modwen Developments Ltd v SSCLG [2018] EWCA Civ 1643
Explanatory text accompanying policies is relevant to interpretation but doesn't override the policy itself.
R (Cherkley Campaign Limited) v Mole Valley DC [2014] EWCA Civ 567; R (Sainsbury’s Supermarkets PLC) v SSLG [2009] EWHC 1501 (Admin)
A failure to consider relevant considerations doesn't amount to an error of law if they weren't raised by the parties and there's no specific statutory duty to consider them.
West v First Secretary of State [2005] EWHC 729 (Admin); Cotswold DC v SSCLG [2013] EWHC 3719 (Admin)
Precedent may be a material consideration, but there must be evidence beyond mere fear or concern; whether it's material is for the decision-maker's judgment.
Collis Radio v SSE (1975); Poundstretcher Ltd v SSE [1988]; Rumsey v SSETR (2001); Sainsbury’s Supermarkets; R (Cooper) v Ashford BC [2016]; R (Friends of the Earth Ltd) v SST [2021]
If an inspector made an error, the court should refuse relief only if the decision would inevitably have been the same.
Forest of Dean DC v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 2429 (Admin)
Outcomes
Ground 1 (misinterpretation of policy IN1): Dismissed.
The inspector appropriately considered the policy's qualification by 'economic viability' and the lack of evidence on how shortfalls would be addressed.
Ground 2 (precedent): Dismissed.
The inspector's conclusion that no precedent was set was not irrational given the agreed viability of the scheme and the small percentage of remaining development.
Ground 3 (education): Dismissed.
The inspector's reasoning regarding the primary school's necessity was justified and adequately reasoned, considering the pupil yield figures and the uncertainties about future development.