Hunston Properties Ltd v St Albans City and District Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir David Keene,Lord Justice Ryder,Lord Justice Maurice Kay |
| Judgment Date | 12 December 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWCA Civ 1610 |
| Docket Number | Case No: C1/2013/2734 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 12 December 2013 |
[2013] EWCA Civ 1610
Lord Justice Maurice Kay
Lord Justice Ryder
and
Sir David Keene
Case No: C1/2013/2734
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PELLING QC (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
CO 4686 2013
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Matthew Reed (instructed by the Appellant's Head of Legal Services) for the Appellant
Paul Stinchcombe QC and Ned Helme (instructed by Photiades Solicitors) for the First Respondent and (Treasury Solicitors for the Second Respondent). The Second Respondent did not appear.
Hearing date: 20 November 2013
Introduction
This appeal concerns the interpretation of the relatively recent (March 2012) National Planning Policy Framework ("the Framework") and in particular of the policies contained therein in respect of residential development proposals. The issue is one which arises in the situation where, as in the present case and in a number of other planning authority areas, there is not as yet a local plan produced after and in accordance with the Framework.
Hunston Properties Limited ("Hunston") applied for outline planning permission for the construction of 116 dwellings, a care home and some associated facilities on five hectares of agricultural land within the district of St Albans. Permission was refused by the District Council, now the appellant, principally on the ground that the site was almost entirely within the Metropolitan Green Belt. Hunston appealed under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ("the 1990 Act") and, simplifying the history of the matter, the appeal was dismissed on 12 March 2013 by an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. Hunston then challenged that decision in the Administrative Court under Section 288 of the 1990 Act. H.H. Judge Pelling QC, sitting as a judge of the High Court, quashed the inspector's decision, and the Council now appeals with permission granted by Sullivan LJ. The Secretary of State appeared by counsel in the Administrative Court to resist the Section 288 challenge but seeks to play no part in these appeal proceedings.
I note the basis on which Sullivan LJ gave permission to appeal. He said that he was not persuaded that the appeal had a real prospect of success, but he found there to be a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard so that there could be a "definitive answer to the proper interpretation of paragraph 47" of the Framework, and in particular the interrelationship between the first and second bullet points in that paragraph.
Policy Context
The Framework was published by the Government in order to set out its planning policies for England, so as to give guidance to local planning authorities and other decisions-makers in the planning system. It was seen by the Minister for Planning as simplifying national planning guidance "by replacing over a thousand pages of national policy with around fifty, written simply and clearly." Unhappily, as this case demonstrates, the process of simplification has in certain instances led to a diminution in clarity. It will be necessary to set out the wording of paragraph 47 of the Framework very soon in this judgment. I have to say that I have not found arriving at "a definitive answer" to the interpretative problem an easy task, because of ambiguity in the drafting. In such a situation, where one is concerned with non-statutory policy guidance issued by the Secretary of State, it would seem sensible for the Secretary of State to review and to clarify what his policy is intended to mean. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court in Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13 has emphasised that policy statements are to be interpreted objectively by the court in accordance with the language used and in its proper context, so that the meaning of the policy is for the courts, even if the application of the policy is for planning authorities and other planning decision-makers: see paragraphs 18 and 19. That case was concerned with policy in a statutory development plan, but it would seem difficult to distinguish between such a policy statement and one contained in non-statutory national policy guidance. I accept, therefore, as do the parties to this appeal, that it is for this court to seek to arrive at the appropriate meaning of paragraph 47 of the Framework.
That paragraph begins the section of the Framework entitled "Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes." Insofar as material for present purposes, it reads as follows:
"47. To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should:
• Use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period;
• 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% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land."
These are the two bullet points referred to by Sullivan LJ.
There is no doubt, that in proceeding their local plans, local planning authorities are required to ensure that the "full objectively assessed needs" for housing are to be met, "as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework". Those policies include the protection of Green Belt land. Indeed, a whole section of the Framework, Section 9, is devoted to that topic, a section which begins by saying "The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts": Paragraph 79. The Framework seems to envisage some review in detail of Green Belt boundaries through the new Local Plan process, but states that "the general extent of Green Belts across the country is already established." It seems clear, and is not in dispute in this appeal, that such a Local Plan could properly fall short of meeting the "full objectively assessed needs" for housing in its area because of the conflict which would otherwise arise with policies on the Green Belt or indeed on other designations hostile to development, such as those on Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty or National Parks. What is likely to be significant in the preparation of this Local Plan for the district of St Albans is that virtually all the undeveloped land in the district outside the built up areas forms part of the Metropolitan Green Belt.
However, no such new Local Plan for this district currently exists. There remains the old-style Local Plan, the St. Albans City and District Local Plan Review, dating from 1994, but it is not suggested that its contents insofar as they deal with housing land requirements are of any relevance today. The most recent policy document containing a quantified assessment of such requirements in the district was the East of England Plan, which contained a figure of 360 dwelling units per annum, but that Plan was revoked on the 3 January 2013, in accordance with the Government's move away from strategically based figures. Thus, as the inspector in the present case put it:
"there is a policy vacuum in terms of the housing delivery target." [paragraph 23]
The appellant Council resolved on 17 January 2013 that the target of 360 dwellings per annum from 2001 to 2021 remained the most appropriate interim housing target for housing land supply purposes.
There are a number of other policies in the Framework which are of relevance. At paragraph 13 it states that the Framework:
"constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and decision-takers both in drawing up plans and as a material consideration in determining applications."
Paragraph 14 begins by saying that:
"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."
It goes on in that same paragraph to spell out what that means for plan-making and for decision-taking. In respect of the latter, it sets out two bullet points. The first deals with cases where there is a development plan. The second is relevant to the present appeal:
"where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, [it means] 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;
orspecific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted."
A footnote, no.9, gives examples of such policies as are meant by that last sentence, including policies relating to land designated as Green Belt.
As I have already said, the Framework includes specific policies to protect Green Belt land. Paragraphs 87 and 88 are of particular relevance. They state:
"87. As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
88. When considering any planning application, local authorities should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wokingham Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another
...approach to the first bullet point. As Sir David Keene (with the agreement of Maurice Kay and Ryder LJJ) said in Hunston Properties Ltd v St Albans City and District Council [2013] EWCA Civ 1610 at [26]: "it is not for an inspector on a Section 78 appeal to seek to carry out some sort of lo......
-
R Park Lane Homes (South East) Ltd v Rother District Council
...whole, or specific policies in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted ( St Albans City Council v Hunston Properties [2013] EWCA Civ 1610; Solihull Metropolitan B.C. v Gallagher Estates Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1610). v) Those policies in the NPPF (and hence the principles laid......
-
Phides Estates (Overseas) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (First Defendant) Shepway District Council (Second Defendant) David Plumstead (Third Defendant)
...error which led to the partial quashing of plans in Hunston Properties Ltd. v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWCA Civ 1610, and Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council v Gallagher Estates Ltd. [2014] EWCA Civ 1610. He does not say — indeed, he could not say — t......
-
R (Crownhall Estates Ltd) v Chichester District Council Loxwood Parish Council (Interested Party)
...whole, or specific policies in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted ( St Albans City Council v Hunston Properties [2013] EWCA Civ 1610; Solihull Metropolitan B.C. v Gallagher Estates Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1610). v) Those policies in the NPPF (and hence the principles laid......
-
High Court Allows Relaxed View Of Needs On Appeal
...(St Albans City and District Council v (1) Hunston Properties Limited and (2) Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWCA Civ 1610). Dentons is the world's first polycentric global law firm. A top 20 firm on the Acritas 2015 Global Elite Brand Index, the Firm is comm......
-
Planning Permission
...not see how it could be open to an inspector 140 R (Crownhall Estates Ltd) v Chichester District Council [2016] EWHC 73 (Admin). 141 [2013] EWCA Civ 1610. 168 Planning Law: A Practitioner’s Handbook to reach a conclusion by reference to a figure contained in a revoked plan. The Court of App......
-
Table of Cases
...[2006] EWHC 661 (Admin) 205 Spicer v Martin (1888) 14 App Cas 12 258 St Albans City and District Council v Hunstan Properties Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1610, [2014] 1 EGLR 79, [2014] JPL 599 432, 433, 434 St Edmondsbury & Ipswich Diocesan Board of Finance v Clark (No 2) [1975] 1 WLR 468, [197......
-
Table of Cases
...CR 34, [2002] 2 PLR 114, [2002] JPL 1206 91, 98 R (Hunston Properties Ltd) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWCA Civ 1610, [2014] JPL 599, [2014] EGLR 79 53, 349–350, 352 R (JH and FW Green Ltd) v South Downs National Park Authority [2018] EWHC 604 (Admin) 42......
-
Planning Permission
...to the housing land shortfall in circumstances 87 R (Crownhall Estates Ltd) v Chichester District Council [2016] EWHC 73 (Admin). 88 [2013] EWCA Civ 1610. 89 NPPF, paras 87–88. where the green belt element meant that very special circumstances had to be shown if development was to take plac......