IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim Number [ ] QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION PLANNING COURT B E T W E E N : WAINHOMES (NORTH WEST) LIMITED Claimant - and – SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT Defendant -and- SOUTH RIBBLE BOROUGH COUNCIL Second Defendant CLAIM BUNDLE INDEX Document Page(s) 1. PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE Claim Form 3 – 8 Statement of Facts and Grounds 9 – 21 Witness Statement of Stephen Harris with Exhibits 22 – 25 Exhibit “SH1” Appeal Decision Notice 24 June 2021 26 – 39 Exhibit “SH2” Appeal Decision Notice 13 December 2019 40 – 59 Exhibit “SH3” Wainhomes (North-West) Limited v 60 – 85 Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government, South Ribble Borough Council [2020] EWHC 2294 (Admin) Exhibit “SH4” Statement of Common Ground Extracts 86 – 105 i 1 Exhibit “SH5” Housing Supply Statement of Common 106 – 113 Ground Extracts Exhibit “SH6” Central Lancashire Core Strategy 2012 114 – 115 Extracts Exhibit “SH7” South Ribble Local Plan Extracts 116 – 124 Exhibit “SH8” National Planning Policy Framework 2019 125 - 131 Paragraphs 33 and 59 – 76 Exhibit “SH9” National Planning Policy Guidance 132 – 135 Paragraphs 61-062 and 68-005 2. CASE LAW St. Modwen Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for 136 – 157 Communities and Local Government and another [2017] EWCA Civ 1643 Carpets of Worth Ltd. v Wyre Forest District Council (1991) 158 – 171 62 P. & C.R. 334 ii 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM No. CO/ QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION PLANNING COURT IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO BRING STATUTORY REVIEW PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 288 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 BETWEEN: WAINHOMES (NORTH WEST) LIMITED Claimant -and- SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HOUSING, COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT First Defendant -and- SOUTH RIBBLE BOROUGH COUNCIL Second Defendant STATEMENT OF FACTS AND GROUNDS PRELIMINARY References in this document to documents within the Claim Bundle are made in the format [CB/ Tab / Page Number] Essential pre-reading: Statement of Facts and Grounds [CB/1/9-21], Decision Letter of Inspector Dawe (“the DL”) [CB/1/26-39], Witness Statement of Stephen Harris [CB/1/22-25] (Time estimate: 1 hour 30) I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Claimant seeks permission to apply for statutory review of a decision of the Defendant’s appointed Inspector dated 24 June 2021 to dismiss the Claimant’s appeal and refuse to grant planning permission for development described as “ outline planning permission for up to 100 1 9 dwellings with access and associated works” (“the Development”) on a site known as Land to the South of Chain House Lane, Whitestake, Preston (“the Site”) (“the Decision”). The Site falls within the Second Defendant’s (“the Council”) administrative area of South Ribble. 2. In summary, the Inspector took a flawed approach to the assessment of the appeal and failed to properly interpret Paragraph 73 and Footnote 37 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 (“NPPF”). The Inspector’s flawed approach to this policy led him to take into account an immaterial consideration. Further or alternatively, the Inspector failed to give adequate intelligible reasons for his decision. The Decision was therefore not within the powers of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the TCPA 1990”) and/or the relevant requirements have not been met, and the decision ought to be quashed and remitted back to the First Defendant for his reconsideration. II FACTUAL BACKGROUND Policy and Guidance 3. Paragraphs 33 and 60 of the NPPF state as follows: “[33] Policies in local plans and spatial development strategies should be reviewed to assess whether they need updating at least once every five years, and should then be updated as necessary18. Reviews should be completed no later than five years from the adoption date of a plan, and should take into account changing circumstances affecting the area, or any relevant changes in national policy. Relevant strategic policies will need updating at least once every five years if their applicable local housing need figure has changed significantly; and they are likely to require earlier review if local housing need is expected to change significantly in the near future.” [CB/1/126] “[60] To determine the minimum number of homes needed, strategic policies should be informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the standard method in national planning guidance – unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach which also reflects current and future demographic trends and market signals. In addition to the local housing need figure, any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas should also be taken into account in establishing the amount of housing to be planned for.” [CB/1/127] 4. Paragraph 73 of the NPPF provides as follows, in so far as is relevant: 2 10 “.... Local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement set out in adopted strategic policies [36], or against their local housing need [“LHN”] where the strategic policies are more than five years old [37]…” [CB/1/130-131] 5. Footnote 37 then provides that: “Unless these strategic policies have been reviewed and found not to require updating. Where local housing need is used as the basis for assessing whether a five year supply of specific deliverable sites exists, it should be calculated using the standard method [“SM”] set out in national planning guidance.” [CB/1/130] 6. Guidance is also provided in the Planning Practice Guidance (“PPG”). In particular, PPG paragraph 68-005 advises: “What housing requirement figure should authorities use when calculating their 5 year housing land supply? Housing requirement figures identified in adopted strategic housing policies should be used for calculating the 5 year housing land supply figure where: the plan was adopted in the last 5 years, or the strategic housing policies have been reviewed within the last 5 years and found not to need updating. In other circumstances the 5 year housing land supply will be measured against the area’s local housing need calculated using the standard method.” [CB/1/135] 7. The Inspector cites other PPG paragraphs including 61-062 (referred to within the DL as “paragraph 062”). This paragraph applies under the heading “Plan Making” and states: “How often should a plan or policies be reviewed? To be effective plans need to be kept up-to-date. The National Planning Policy Framework states policies in local plans and spatial development strategies, should be reviewed to assess whether they need updating at least once every 5 years, and should then be updated as necessary. Under regulation 10A of The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended) local planning authorities must review local plans, and Statements of Community Involvement at least once every 5 years from their adoption date to ensure that policies remain relevant and effectively address the needs of the local community. Most plans are likely to require updating in whole or in part at least every 5 years. Reviews should be proportionate to the issues in hand. Plans may be 3 11 found sound conditional upon a plan update in whole or in part within 5 years of the date of adoption. Where a review was undertaken prior to publication of the Framework (27 July 2018) but within the last 5 years, then that plan will continue to constitute the up-to-date plan policies unless there have been significant changes as outlined below. There will be occasions where there are significant changes in circumstances which may mean it is necessary to review the relevant strategic policies earlier than the statutory minimum of 5 years, for example, where new cross-boundary matters arise. Local housing need will be considered to have changed significantly where a plan has been adopted prior to the standard method being implemented, on the basis of a number that is significantly below the number generated using the standard method, or has been subject to a cap where the plan has been adopted using the standard method. This is to ensure that all housing need is planned for a [sic] quickly as reasonably possible.” [CB/1/133] 8. The relevant strategic policy providing the housing requirement within the adopted development plan is Policy 4 of the Core Strategy for Central Lancashire [CB/1/115]. The Core Strategy was prepared by the Second Defendant together with Preston City Council and Chorley Council, who are all part of a single housing marking area identified as Central Lancashire, and was adopted in 2012. It was common ground between the Claimant and Second Defendant at the inquiry that a review of the Core Strategy was conducted in 2017 where Policy 4 was found not to require updating. 9. It was also common ground at the inquiry that the Council could not demonstrate the required five year supply of housing land based upon the housing requirement in Policy 4 of the Core Strategy. However, the Council could demonstrate a five year supply as against the local housing need derived using the standard method referred to within Footnote 37 [CB/1/111] The 2019 Decision 10. On 4 December 2018 the Claimant applied to the Second Defendant for outline planning permission for the Development. The Council refused to grant planning permission and the Claimant appealed under section 78 of TCPA 1990 to the First Defendant. Following a public inquiry in November 2019 the First Defendant’s Inspector determined to dismiss the appeal (“the 2019 Decision”) [CB/1/40-59]. The 2019 Decision was the subject of an application under s.288 of the TCPA to this Court.