Daventry District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (First Respondent) Hereford Storage Ltd (Second Respondent)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Charles George |
| Judgment Date | 06 May 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 1555 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/6297/2015 |
| Date | 06 May 2016 |
and
[2016] EWHC 1555 (Admin)
Charles George QC
(SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE)
CO/6297/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Daniel Stedman Jones (instructed by District Law) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr Jack Smyth (instructed by the Government Legal Department) appeared on behalf of the First Defendant
Hearing date: 4 May 2016
THE DEPUTY JUDGE: In these proceedings, brought under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ("the TCPA"), Daventry District Council ("the Council") seeks to quash the decision letter of the Secretary of State's Planning Inspector ("the Inspector") allowing the appeal of Hereford Storage Limited ("the appellant") against the Council's refusal of planning permission for development of 40 houses with parking and landscaping at Grants Hill Way, Woodford Halse, Daventry ("the site"). The claim is resisted by the Secretary of State. The appellant, though served as second defendant, has played no part in the proceedings.
Background
The planning application was initially refused by members of the Council (contrary to officers' advice) on 20 November 2013 at a time when the only relevant development plan policies were those in the Daventry District Local Plan ("the DDLP") and when it was agreed that there was not a 5 year supply of housing land. Although the parties' written representations were with the Planning Inspectorate by the end of May 2014, for some unexplained reason the site visit did not take place until 2 February 2015. By August 2015 the Inspector had prepared her draft decision, but because further representations were then received from the parties, her decision letter was not issued until 3 November 2015.
By that time there had been two significant changes from the position when the application was refused and the appeal lodged. First, on 12 December 2014 the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy Local Plan ("the WNJCS") was adopted. Second, the Council now claimed to have a 5 year supply of housing land. This claim was first made with supporting detail in the Council's appeal statement of 21 May 2014. Then on 2 April 2015 the Council published the Daventry District Housing Land Availability report ("the HLA"), purporting to show that there was a 5.94 year supply of housing land in Daventry District, excluding the Northampton Related Development Area, assessed against the housing requirement set out in policy S3 of the WNJCS. The HLA was sent to the Inspector on 21 May 2015. The position was then refined by email of 6 August 2015 in which the Council informed the Planning Inspectorate that the current position was a 5.85 year land supply. This was disputed by the appellant by email of 19 August 2015.
The Council's reason for refusal was that:
i. "It is considered that the proposed development would result in an unsustainable form of development which would sit beyond the confines of the village and which would by reason of its location have an adverse impact on the character of the amenity of Woodford Halse. Accordingly it is also considered that the development would conflict with the provisions of Saved Policies GN1 (General) (E,F); GN2 (General) (A,C); EN42 (A,C) and (D); HS22 (A,B) and (C) of the Daventry District Local Plan. In reaching this conclusion, regard has been given to the provisions of the National Planning Framework paragraph 14, 17, 48, 49, 109 and the emerging policies in the West Northamptonshire Joint Core WNJCS."
Development Plan Policies
Prior to 12 December 2014 the only relevant adopted development plan policies were those in the DDLP, adopted in 2007. Policy GN1 sought to "severely restrain development in the open countryside". Policy HS22 identified Woodford Halse as a "Restricted Infill Village". The site is located outside the settlement boundary for Woodford Halse. Policy HS24 stated that planning permission would not be granted for residential development in the open countryside, other than for two categories into which the proposed development did not fall.
In its appeal Statement of Case the appellant contended that the Council's policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date because of the absence of a 5 year land supply, reliance being placed on paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework ("NPPF"). This position was somewhat modified in its further representations in August 2015.
These policies in the DDLP were not replaced but supplemented by the WNJCS. Policy S1 — The distribution of development stated that "New development in the rural areas will be limited". Policy S3 — Scale and distribution of housing development made numerical provision for the plan period 2011 to 2019, including 2,360 for the Daventry Rural Areas. Policy R1 — Spatial strategy for the rural Areas set new requirements to be met by residential development in rural areas. In particular it provided that:
i. "Development outside the existing confines will be permitted where it involves the re-use of buildings or, in exceptional circumstances, where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities or would contribute towards and improve the local economy."
There follows:
i. "Once the housing requirement for rural areas has been met through planning permissions or future allocations, further housing development will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that it:
ii) would result in environmental improvements on a site including for example the re-use of previously developed land and best practice in design; or
iii) is required to support the retention of or improvement to essential local services that may be under threat …; and
i. iii) has been informed by an effective community involvement exercise prior to the submission of planning application; or
iv) is a rural exceptions site that meets the criteria set out in policy H3;
v) has been agreed through an adopted neighbourhood plan.
The National Planning Policy Framework
The relevant policies are by now extremely familiar. Paragraph 14 provides:
i. "At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.
ii. …
iii. For decision-taking this means:
• approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and
• where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless:
— any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or
— specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted."
One of the 12 "core land-use planning principles" in paragraph 17 is:
i. "Take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it."
Paragraph 47 deals with the obligation on local planning authorities to "identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5%…". Paragraph 48 sets out the allowance to be made for windfall sites. Then paragraph 49 states:
i. "Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites."
Finally paragraph 196 states:
i. "The planning system is plan-led. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This Framework is a material consideration in planning decisions."
The Decision Letter
In the decision letter the Inspector identified the "Main Issue" as being the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. She made no mention of the WNJCS, but found conflict with the three relevant policies in the DDLP. She considered that the open character and appearance of the countryside in the location would be changed by the appeal proposal. However, in her view, given the surrounding context, the site could not be described as being open countryside. Furthermore she found that the proposed development met the three dimensions of sustainable development, economic, social and environmental, the last because in her view there would be no harm to character and appearance from development of the site.
It is appropriate to set out her paragraphs 12 and 13 in full:
i. "12. I note that there is a disagreement between the parties as to whether or not the council can identify a five year supply of housing land. I make no judgement either way. Nonetheless, in this case, I have found that the scheme would not harm the character and appearance of the area. I have borne in mind paragraphs 14 and 47 to 49 of the Framework and its guidance that planning should take account of different...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bounces Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
... ... Matt Lewin (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the First Defendant ... The Second Defendant did not appear at the hearing and was ... 5 The Second Defendant local planning authority (“ the Council ”) did not ... Housing and Local Government and Warwick District Council [2020] EWHC 958 (Admin) Andrews J ... Daventry District Council v Secretary of State for ... ...
-
East Quayside 12 LLP v The Council of the City of Newcastle Upon Tyne
... ... City of Newcastle Upon Tyne Respondent and (1) Secretary of State for velling Up, Housing and Communities (2) St Ann's Quay Management Limited ... Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the first interested party, to allow East Quayside 12's ... , St Ann's Quay Management Ltd., is the second interested party. It supported the council's ... a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the ... Practice Guidance issued by the Government in July 2019 (“the PPG”) states in paragraph ... 153 and South Bucks District" Council v Porter (No.2) [2004] 1 W.L.R. 1953 ]\xE2" ... of Sales L.J., as he then was, in Daventry District Council v Secretary of State for ... ...