Jelson Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another

Town and country planning – Planning permission – Housing need – Appellant appealing against refusal of outline planning permission – Inspector appointed by first respondent secretary of state dismissing appeal – High Court dismissing application to quash decision – Appellant appealing – Whether inspector adopting lawful approach to identifying “full, objectively assessed needs” for housing — Appeal dismissed The appellant appealed under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Act against the refusal of outline planning permission by the second respondent local authority for a development of housing on land off Sherborne Road, Burbage in Leicestershire. The site was about 5.6 hectares of undeveloped land to the east of Burbage, outside the settlement boundary, in an area where Policy 4 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Core Strategy says the second respondents would “[protect] and preserve the open landscape … which provides an important setting for the village …”. The appellant’s proposal was for the construction of 73 dwellings. Paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provided that local planning authorities should “ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area”. It also required local planning authorities to demonstrate a “five-year supply of deliverable housing sites”. An issue had arisen as to whether affordable housing need should be fully met by the “objectively assessed needs” (OAN). An inspector appointed by the first respondent secretary of state held an inquiry into the section 78 appeal and rejected the appellant’s challenge on all grounds. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash that decision: see [2016] EWHC 2979 (Admin). The appellant appealed contending that the inspector had failed to approach her assessment of the full need for affordable housing as she should have done, and had failed to identify, with clarity and precision, a robust figure for the “full, objectively assessed needs” for housing in the second respondent’s area; in particular, she had unlawfully rejected the figure of 980 dwellings per annum as a figure that should be considered in the calculation. Held: The appeal was dismissed. (1) The appellant’s submissions collided with the most basic principle in the court’s jurisdiction to review planning decisions, which was that matters of planning judgment were not for the court, but for the decision-maker and that the decision-maker’s exercise of planning judgment would not be overturned except on clearly demonstrated public law grounds: Stratford on Avon District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 2074 (Admin); [2013] PLSCS 211 considered. (2) It could not be said that the inspector either neglected or failed to understand any relevant policy in the national planning policy framework (NPPF), or any relevant guidance in the planning policy guidance (PPG), bearing on the task she had to perform in assessing the “full, objectively assessed needs” for housing. Nor can it be said that she failed to apply the relevant policy and guidance lawfully. She had referred to the relevant policies in her decision letter. Any suggestion that the inspector failed to take into account the figure of 980 dwellings per annum in her assessment of housing need, or failed to come to a conclusion about it, was also untenable. She manifestly did take it into account. Her conclusion was a matter of planning judgment and the inspector’s planning judgment seemed wholly unexceptionable as a matter of law and any other conclusion would have been impossible: Barker Mill Estates Trustees v Test Valley Borough Council [2016] EWHC 3028 (Admin); [2017] EGLR 14 considered. (3) In the circumstances of this case, it would have been surprising if the inspector had judged the “full, objectively assessed needs” for housing to be at a level higher or lower than she did. Whether she would have been entitled to do so was beside the point. All that the court needed to decide was whether she committed any error of law in the conclusions she actually reached; in the court’s view she had not. She assessed housing need, including the need for affordable housing, consistently with relevant policy in the NPPF and relevant guidance in the PPG, and with sufficient clarity and precision. Her approach conformed with the previous decisions of the court. Her conclusions were well within the bounds of reasonable planning judgment, coherent and not contradictory. Her reasons, though compact, were adequate and clear. The judge was right to uphold her decision: City and District Council of St Albans v Hunston Properties Ltd. [2013] EWCA Civ 1610; [2014] 1 EGLR 79; [2014] EGILR 7; Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council v Gallagher Estates Ltd. [2014] EWCA 1610; [2014] PLSCS 360 and Oadby and Wigston Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWCA Civ 1040; [2016] PLSCS 289 applied. Christopher Lockhart-Mummery QC. (instructed by Shakespeare Martineau LLP) appeared for the appellant; Hereward Phillpot QC and Sasha Blackmore (instructed by the Government Legal Department) appeared for the first respondent; Thea Osmund-Smith (instructed by Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council) appeared for the second respondents. Eileen O’Grady, barrister Click here to read a transcript of Jelson Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another