Winifred Helen Ward v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 676 (Admin)
Vistry Homes Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors
7 August 2024
[2024] EWHC 2088 (Admin)
High Court
Two companies challenged decisions rejecting their plans to build houses in protected Green Belt land. A judge said the decisions were fair, even though the plans offered some good things (like affordable homes and environmental improvements). The judge explained that while these good points matter, the harm to the Green Belt was more important, and the decisions weren't unfairly made.
Key Facts
- •Two claims for statutory review under s.288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 challenged Inspectors' decisions on planning appeals for large residential schemes in the Green Belt.
- •Both schemes were deemed "inappropriate development" requiring "very special circumstances" (VSC) to justify approval.
- •Inspectors found substantial harm to the Green Belt and landscape, but weighed the schemes' housing contributions heavily.
- •Claims challenged the weight given to specific benefits: PDL (Vistry), economic benefits (Fairfax), and biodiversity net gain (BNG) (both).
- •Claimants didn't dispute the consideration of benefits, but their relative weight in the VSC balance.
Legal Principles
Courts distinguish between material considerations and their weight; weight is a planning judgment for the authority, subject only to Wednesbury irrationality.
Tesco Stores Limited v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] 1 WLR 759
Challenges to an Inspector's decision on weight are difficult; the court focuses on legality of the process, not merits.
Tesco Stores Limited v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] 1 WLR 759
Statutory review under s.288 considers misinterpretation of policy, irrationality, and legally inadequate reasoning.
St. Modwen Developments Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2018] PTSR 746
NPPF's definition of "previously developed land" (PDL) and its curtilage requires careful application of legal principles.
R (Hampshire County Council) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2022] QB 103
BNG (biodiversity net gain) should be considered a benefit, even if exceeding the statutory 10% requirement, but its weight is a matter of judgment.
NRS Saredon Aggregates Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2024] Env. L.R. 18
Outcomes
Vistry's claim dismissed.
Inspector's decision on PDL weight was a rational planning judgment, not a misinterpretation of the NPPF; the Inspector permissibly used the 10% BNG requirement as a benchmark, but did not wrongly apply it.
Fairfax's claim dismissed.
Inspector's limited weight on economic benefits was a rational judgment considering the scheme's policy conflict; even with increased weight on benefits, the VSC test wouldn't be met; the Inspector permissibly used the 10% BNG requirement as a benchmark, but did not wrongly apply it.
Similar Cases
Mid Suffolk District Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 930 (Admin)
NRS Saredon Aggregates Limited v The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2795 (Admin)
Dorchester Living Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors
[2024] EWHC 3284 (Admin)
Seedlings Property Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3371 (Admin)