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.