Allowing development outside settlement boundaries

The High Court has confirmed an appeal inspector’s discretion to allow development beyond settlement boundaries despite being contrary to Local Plan policies and there being more than a five years housing land supply.

Relevance to other planning appeals

The appeal decision had allowed Taylor Wimpey permission to build up to 55 houses outside Wokingham's development limits. There are five aspects of this case that will particularly interest others:

• the Court's confirmation that housing need can be a material consideration even when there is a five year housing land supply;
• the Judge's clear rejection of the claim that development outside settlement boundaries should only be allowed if required to provide five years' housing land supply;
• the importance given by the Inspector to the underlying aims of the policies;
• impact of the standard method on policy weight; and
• the Inspector's weighting of policy conflicts.

Weight to housing need

Wokingham had a housing land supply of 6.83 years but the Judge nevertheless confirmed that it was valid for an appeal Inspector to give significant weight to housing supply.  Mrs Justice Lang's Judgment stated, “In principle, an inspector is entitled to have regard to the area’s housing needs and housing land supply beyond the five year minimum requirement, as significantly boosting the supply of a sufficient number and variety of homes is a key policy objective of the Framework (paragraphs 59 and 8b).”[paragraph 63 of the High Court Judgment [2019] EWHC 3158 (Admin)].

Five Year Housing Land Supply

The judge rejected the Council's case that permission should only be allowed outside settlement boundaries if required to provide enough land to secure over five years' housing land supply.  She said, “I do not accept the Claimant’s submission that (these cases establish a binding principle that) a grant of planning permission outside settlement boundaries can only be accorded weight in so far as it indicates that the strict application of settlement boundaries would prevent the area’s five year housing land supply being met. An inspector must decide in the context of the facts and circumstances of each case whether, and to what extent, the grant of planning permission outside settlement boundaries is a material consideration, and if so, how much weight to accord to that factor.” [paragraph 63 of the above Judgment].

Policy aims are relevant to an appeal decision

Although the development was contrary to the development boundary, there were two mitigating considerations that led to reduced weight being given to this conflict.

Firstly, the appeal Inspector took a holistic approach to the policies and recognised that although there was conflict with the development plan policies, the proposal would nevertheless be in accordance with the underlying aims of the policies to a significant extent: "It is important to look at the underlying aims of those policies in deciding the weight to be given to the conflict with them. Those aims are to protect the identities of separate settlements, to maintain the quality of the environment and to locate development where there is good accessibility to services and facilities. For the reasons given above…. the proposal would be in accordance with the underlying aims of the policies to a significant extent.” (paragraph 55 of the appeal decision)

Are policies rendered out-of-date by the standard method?

Secondly, the Inspector considered whether the policies were out-of-date.  The Local Plan was over 5 years old and the national standard method results in a higher housing requirement than adopted in the Plan. On this basis the Inspector considered that the development limits were out-of-date.  On this basis he reduced the weight from 'full weight' to 'significant weight', recognising they were nevertheless generally consistent with national policy and therefore still had weight in accordance with paragraph 213 of the Framework.

Weight given to policy conflicts

The appeal decision weighs up the benefits and harms of the development in a very clear manner.  The Inspector gave significant weight to the policy conflict, great weight to the harm to the setting of a listed building and moderate weight to the harm to the character and appearance of the area but found that these harms were outweighed by the significant weight he gave to the provision of affordable housing, the accessible location and to the enhancement to the setting of the listed building in terms of improved public access.  He also gave limited weight to economic benefits, a new footpath link and biodiversity gain (paragraphs 57 and 58 of the appeal decision).  On this basis he justified development outside the development limits in a manner that was endorsed by the High Court.

For more details about this appeal, please search for appeal reference APP/X0360/W/18/3204133.

To find other appeals that are relevant to you, use the search on our Home page.