Ivan Crane v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (First Defendant) Harborough District Council (Second Defendant)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Lindblom |
| Judgment Date | 23 February 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 425 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/2468/2014 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 23 February 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 425 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
PLANNING COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Lindblom
Case No: CO/2468/2014
Mr Thomas Hill Q.C. and Mr James Corbet Burcher (instructed by Irwin Mitchell LLP) for the Claimant
Ms Natalie Lieven Q.C. (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the First Defendant
Mr Jack Smyth (instructed by the Solicitor to Harborough District Council) for the Second Defendant
Hearing date: 15 December 2014
Introduction
Neighbourhood plans are seen by the Government as an important part of its so-called "localism agenda". In this case the court must consider whether a decision on an appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in which "very substantial negative weight" was given to the proposal's conflict with a recently made neighbourhood plan, was lawful, given that the policies of the development plan for the supply of housing land were acknowledged to be "out of date".
The claimant, Mr Ivan Crane, applies under section 288 of the 1990 Act for an order to quash the decision of the first defendant, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, in a decision letter dated 17 April 2014, to dismiss his appeal against the refusal of planning permission by the second defendant, Harborough District Council, for a development of 111 dwellings, a sports hall, a neighbourhood centre, sports pitches, and associated parking, open space, access and landscaping on his land at Crowfoot Way, Broughton Astley in Leicestershire. The application is opposed both by the Secretary of the State and by the council.
The issues for the court
Mr Crane's application raises two main issues:
(1) whether the Secretary of State erred in law in concluding that the proposed development was in conflict with the Broughton Astley Neighbourhood Plan 2013–2028 (ground 1 of the application), whether that conclusion was irrational (ground 4), and whether the reasons the Secretary of State gave for it were lawful (ground 3); and
(2) whether the Secretary of State misinterpreted or misapplied government policy in the National Planning Policy Framework ("the NPPF") (ground 2), whether the conclusions he reached in applying relevant NPPF policy were irrational (ground 4), and whether the reasons he gave for those conclusions were lawful (ground 3).
Background
The appeal site is about 14 hectares of open and undeveloped land, lying to the south of Hallbrook Primary School. Mr Crane's application for outline planning permission was submitted to the council on 29 March 2012. The council refused the application on 22 August 2012. Mr Crane appealed to the Secretary of State on 19 September 2012.
At the time of the council's decision, and when the inquiry into the appeal was held in May 2013, the development plan comprised the Harborough Core Strategy, adopted in 2011, and the saved policies of the Harborough District Local Plan, adopted in 2001. The policies for housing development in the core strategy had been based upon the East Midlands Regional Plan, which by the time of the council's decision was no longer extant. Policy CS2 of the core strategy, "Delivering New Housing", set the requirement of an "overall housing provision" of "at least" 7,700 new dwellings for the district of Harborough between 2006 and 2028, including "at least" 400 in Broughton Astley. Policy CS16, "Broughton Astley", envisaged the preparation of an allocations development plan document to identify specific sites for development in that settlement. Policy CS2 said that the "Limits to Development" in settlements would be "reviewed through the Allocations DPD in order to enable the scale of new housing envisaged to be accommodated", and that housing development "will not be permitted outside the Limits to Development … unless at any point there is less than a five year supply of deliverable housing sites and the proposal is in keeping with the scale and character of the settlement concerned". In December 2012 the council began a review of the core strategy. In March 2013 its consultants, G.L. Hearn, reported on their initial assessment of the housing land supply in the district, concluding that a reasonable basis on which to plan would be a total provision of about 440 new dwellings a year.
The neighbourhood plan
The neighbourhood plan was one of the first to proceed towards adoption. The provisions for the preparation of a "neighbourhood development plan" – in sections 38A, 38B and 38C of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Schedule 4B to the 1990 Act – were introduced by the Localism Act 2011, and came into effect in April 2012. In July 2012 Broughton Astley Parish Council applied to the council for its parish to be designated a Neighbourhood Area. The designation was made in October 2012. A pre-submission draft of the neighbourhood plan underwent consultation in February and March 2013. On behalf of Mr Crane, his planning consultants, Sworders, responded to this consultation. They said that the three sites proposed for allocation for housing development were not "the most appropriate, when considered against all reasonable alternatives …", and they urged the advantages of allocating Mr Crane's land as "an entirely suitable and sustainable site for development". Between 1 July and 12 August 2013 the parish council formally consulted on the examination draft of the plan. The examination hearing was held in Broughton Astley Village Hall on 19 September 2013. The council received the examiner's report on 4 October 2013. In his report the examiner acknowledged the "basic conditions" in paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4B to the 1990 Act, including the requirement that the neighbourhood plan be "in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the development plan for the area …". He acknowledged that the proposed allocations in the draft neighbourhood plan "provide for well in excess of the requirement set out in the Core Strategy", and said he was "satisfied that policy H1 is in general conformity with the adopted development plan, as well as having regard to [the NPPF]". He also observed that "[numerous] representations sought to compare the merits of the allocated sites with alternative sites", but that "such matters are outside the scope of this examination". He concluded that, subject to certain modifications, the neighbourhood plan should proceed to a referendum. On 16 January 2014 a referendum was held. Sufficient support emerged for the making of the plan. On 20 January 2014 the council resolved that the plan should be made. When it came into effect it became part of the development plan, as defined in the amended section 38(3) of the 2004 Act.
The title given to the neighbourhood plan by the parish council was "The Big Plan for Broughton Astley", its sub-title "Our Village – Our Decisions". It covers the period from 2013 to 2028. In section 1, the "Introduction", paragraph 1.3, "How the Neighbourhood Plan Fits into the Planning System", says that the Localism Act allows the neighbourhood plan to provide more than the core strategy requirement of "at least 400 new homes between 2006 and 2028", but not less. Paragraph 1.4 says that the plan is "about much more" than "deciding where new housing, additional leisure, retail and employment should go", and that the plan "is a plan for the village as a whole". Paragraph 1.6 refers to the background information used in the preparation of the neighbourhood plan – the "Evidence Base".
In section 2, "Key Issues, Core Objectives and the Vision for the Future 2013 – 2028", paragraph 2.1 summarizes the "key issues" that the plan had to address. As for "Housing", the first two "key issues" are: "Housing in Broughton Astley has expanded rapidly over a relatively short time period but facilities and amenities have not increased accordingly leaving a significant gap", and "Concerns that additional housing development will put pressure on already stretched amenities such as the local Doctors' surgery and the Primary Schools". Paragraph 2.2, "The Core Objectives and Vision of the Neighbourhood Plan", lists eight objectives, the first two of which are: "1. Accommodate at least 400 new properties in a manner that is appropriate to the character of the village and its countryside setting" and "2. Control development to avoid excessive expansion into surrounding countryside".
In section 3, "The Policies of the Broughton Astley Neighbourhood Plan", paragraph 3.1, "Housing", lists some of "[the] key issues raised during community consultation in relation to housing", including that "[housing] in Broughton Astley has expanded rapidly over a relatively short time period but facilities and amenities have not been increased accordingly leaving a significant gap"; that "[housing] should not be built before additional facilities are provided"; that "[any] new housing should be supported by adequate infrastructure – medical centre, schools, leisure, …"; and "[concerns] that additional housing development will put pressure on already stretched amenities such as the local Doctors' Surgery and the Primary Schools".
There are three policies for housing development – policies H1, H2 and H3.
Policy H1 is the only policy in which specific allocations of land are made for housing, its objective being to allocate land "for at least 400 new homes". It allocates...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mark Wenman v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another
...that it "seeks to restrict the supply of housing" …" 63 In Crane v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2015] EWHC 425 (Admin), Lindblom J adopted a more nuanced approach, holding that the inspector had to decide, in the exercise of his planning judgment, what we......
-
Barbara Robinson v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (First Defendant) Suffolk Coastal District Council (Second Defendant) Withers Trust Corporation Ltd (Interested Party)
...housing land supply] but also how big it is, and how significant”: Crane v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 425 (Admin), paragraph 71; Phides Estates (Overseas) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 827 (Admin), paragr......
-
Keith Langmead Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another
...by the Localism Act 2011 (see the first instance judgment in Crane v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 425 (Admin), at paragraphs 1 and 6). Section 38(A)(2) of the 2004 Act defines a neighbourhood development plan as "a plan which sets out policies (however......
-
Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd; Richborough Estates Partnership LLP v Cheshire East Borough Council
...and the prospect of development coming forward to make it up (see eg Crane v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 425 (Admin), para 71 per Lindblom J). As will be seen, this idea was further developed in Lindblom LJ's judgment in the present The Yoxford site ......
-
Table of Cases
...157 Cox v Glue 136 ER 987, (1848) 5 CB 533, 17 LJCP 162, CtCP 569 Crane v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 425 (Admin) 22, 71, 72, 289, 384 Crawford-Brunt v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 3580 (Admin), [2016] JPL 573 28......
-
Development Plans and Plan-making
...and Bosworth Borough Council [2014] EWHC 754 (Admin) (at [46]); and Crane v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 425 (Admin) (at [62] and [70]). Planning policies and decisions must also reflect and, where appropriate, promote relevant EU obligations and statu......
-
Neighbourhood Planning
...see NPPG at Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 10-001-20140306). In Crane v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 425 (Admin), the court held that the Secretary of State had not erred in law when upholding the refusal of planning permission for a housing development ......
-
Table of Cases
...& CR 335, [1985] JPL 564, LT 324, 329–330 Crabb v Arun DC [1976] Ch 179, [1975] 3 WLR 847, [1975] 3 All ER 865, CA 20 Crane v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 425 (Admin), [2015] All ER (D) 260 (Feb) 482 Crawford-Brunt v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 3580 (Admin), [20......