Bedford Park Developments v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2337 (Admin)
Wayne Ward & Anor v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor
16 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1780 (Admin)
High Court
A couple applied for permission to build a house and stables. They were refused, and appealed. A key issue was water use: new buildings need to show they won't harm local water supplies. They argued because they already lived there, it wouldn't change things. The judge agreed that the decision to refuse planning was fair because the couple hadn't shown they'd solve the water problem. The judge also said the couple's other arguments weren't strong enough to overturn the decision.
Key Facts
- •Claimants applied for planning permission for a residential unit and stable block in 2018, refused by Horsham District Council.
- •Claimants appealed to the Planning Inspectorate, hearing delayed by Covid-19.
- •Claimants moved onto the site in 2020, prior to Natural England's water neutrality guidance.
- •The main issue became water neutrality's impact on the Arun Valley Special Protection Area.
- •Natural England advised that new developments must demonstrate water neutrality.
- •Claimants argued their existing occupation meant the development wouldn't increase water usage.
- •Inspector dismissed the appeal, holding that water neutrality needed to be demonstrated even with prior occupation.
- •Claimants challenged the Inspector's decision on three grounds.
Legal Principles
Habitats Regulations 2017: A competent authority must make an appropriate assessment before granting consent for a plan or project likely to significantly affect a European site, ensuring it won't adversely affect the site's integrity.
Regulation 63, Habitats Regulations 2017
Judicial review of planning decisions: The court's role is supervisory, intervening only if the competent authority (Inspector) made a Wednesbury unreasonable decision or failed to understand its duty under the Habitats Regulations.
R (Wyatt) v Fareham Borough Council [2023] PTSR 1952
Duty to give reasons: Decision-makers must address principal important controversial issues, but not every material consideration.
South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953
Split decisions in planning appeals: Inspectors may grant permission for part of a development, but only if a request for a split decision is made.
R (Coronation Power Ltd) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] EWHC 2216 (Admin); Granada Hospitality v SSETR (2001) 81 P&CR 36; Langton Homes Ltd v SSCLG [2014] EWHC (Admin)
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The Inspector's approach to water neutrality was lawful and consistent with Natural England's guidance. The request to hold the appeal in abeyance was insufficiently articulated, and there was no obligation to make a split decision in the absence of a clear request.
Ground 1 (Water Neutrality) rejected.
The Inspector reasonably interpreted Natural England's guidance, considering the Claimants' prior occupation but requiring water neutrality demonstration. His approach was within the range of reasonable options open to him.
Ground 2 (Abeyance) rejected.
The request to hold the appeal in abeyance lacked clarity and practicality. It was not a principal important issue requiring explicit addressing.
Ground 3 (Split Decision) rejected.
No clear request for a split decision was made. The Inspector's handling of the stable block issue did not render his decision unlawful.
Similar Cases
Mid Suffolk District Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 930 (Admin)
Elizabeth Soilleux v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities
[2023] EWHC 204 (Admin)
Dorchester Living Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors
[2024] EWHC 3284 (Admin)
Timothy James House & Anor v Waverley Borough Council & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3011 (Admin)