0
Bedford Park Developments v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor [2024] EWHC 2337 (Admin)
The High Court has dismissed a statutory challenge to a decision by the Planning Inspectorate not to overturn Lewes District Council’s refusal of planning permission for a controversial 68-home development near the South Downs National Park (‘SDNP’).
The key reason for refusal by the local planning authority was that the development would cause unacceptable landscape and visual harm. At the planning appeal hearing, the parties and the inspector had given consideration to a new appeal decision (the Croudace Decision) which had approved a housing development with community facilities on a nearby site. The grant of permission for this other development raised concerns about the erosion of a gap between the two existing settlements of Ringmer and Broyleside were Bedford Park’s development also to go ahead. The inspector refused to overturn the local planning authority’s decision on the basis of landscape and visual harm, including because of the coalescence point arising from the Croudace Decision.
The developer alleged that the inspector had departed from the Statement of Common Ground (‘SCG’) agreed with the local planning authority both on landscape and visual harm and heritage matters and had failed to give adequate reasons for dismissing the appeal in circumstances where permission for the other development had been granted in the Croudace Decision.
In dismissing the challenge, the High Court rejected the argument that there had been any departure from the SCG, which had clearly identified the issue of landscape and visual harm as the subject of disagreement, with the issue of coalescence also being highlighted in advance of the appeal hearing. In respect of the Croudace Decision, the inspector had properly identified that the grant of permission for that development had changed the baseline for assessing the issue of coalescence and had given adequate reasons for deciding that this weighed against permission for the proposed development being granted (i.e., because of the cumulative impact on eroding the gap between the two settlements). The arguments as to heritage matters were also dismissed as the developer had clearly been on notice that they were to be discussed at the appeal hearing and the inspector had in any event not departed from the SCG.
Notably, this case was one where the High Court accepted that it was appropriate for the Secretary of State to submit witness evidence from the inspector setting out what documents had been before her at the appeal hearing and what points were discussed on that occasion in response to the allegations of procedural unfairness.
The judgment can be accessed here.
Katharine Elliot acted for the successful Secretary of State.
Hashi Mohamed acted for the appellant.
