Chichester District Council v Secretary of State: Clarifying the Application of NPPF Policy 198 in Neighbourhood Plan Conflicts

Introduction

The case of Chichester District Council v. Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government & Anor ([2019] EWCA Civ 1640) presents a pivotal examination of the interplay between local plans and neighbourhood plans within the context of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This case revolved around a dispute over planning permission for a housing development proposed by Beechcroft Land Ltd. on land in Southbourne, East Sussex. The Chichester District Council appealed against the decision of an inspector, initially unfavorable to their stance, leading to deliberations on the correct application of policy paragraph 198 of the NPPF, which addresses conflicts between planning applications and neighbourhood plans.

The primary legal question centered on whether the inspector had erred in interpreting and applying NPPF Policy 198, which prescribes that planning permission should not normally be granted where an application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan. The court’s decision provides significant insights into the hierarchical structure of planning documents and the weight given to various policies within them.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Upper Tribunal Judge Grubb, dismissing the Chichester District Council’s appeal. The central issue was whether the inspector had misapplied NPPF Policy 198 by allowing the planning permission for 34 dwellings proposed by Beechcroft Land Ltd. The Inspector had previously determined that while the proposal conflicted with local plan policies, it did not conflict with the neighbourhood plan's policies.

The court found that the inspector had correctly distinguished between the local plan and the neighbourhood plan's policies. The proposal was in conflict with local plan Policies 2 and 45, which govern development outside settlement boundaries, but did not explicitly conflict with the neighbourhood plan's policies. The Inspector appropriately considered the presumption in favor of sustainable development under NPPF and concluded that the proposal was justifiable despite the policy conflicts due to the lack of demonstrable housing land supply and the limited impact on local congestion.

Consequently, the appeal by the Chichester District Council was dismissed, affirming the inspector’s interpretation and application of NPPF Policy 198.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced key precedents to substantiate the legal reasoning applied. Notable among these were:

Gladman Developments Ltd. v Canterbury City Council [2019] EWCA Civ 669: Reinforced the statutory presumption in favor of the development plan under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, emphasizing accurate interpretation of plan policies.
Crane v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Development [2015] EWHC 425 (Admin): Highlighted the necessity for proposals on unallocated sites to align with comprehensive neighbourhood plans, drawing parallels to the current case.
Simplex GE (Holdings) Ltd. v Secretary of State for the Environment [2017] P.T.S.R. 1041: Discussed the balancing of adverse and beneficial impacts under the NPPF Framework.
Smech Properties Ltd. v Runnymede Borough Council [2016] EWCA Civ 42: Addressed the discretion of courts in withholding relief despite potential misapplications of planning policies.

These precedents were instrumental in determining the correct application of planning policies and the extent of judicial intervention in administrative decisions.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal meticulously dissected the inspector’s application of NPPF Policy 198 in the context of the development plan's hierarchical structure. Key aspects of the legal reasoning included:

Interpretation of Policy Hierarchy: Emphasized that the development plan encompasses both the local plan and the neighbourhood plan, with the former containing overarching policies such as Policies 2 and 45 relevant to development outside settlement boundaries.
Conflict Resolution: Determined that the proposal directly conflicted with local plan policies without contravening neighbourhood plan policies, thereby affirming the inspector’s decision to prioritize local plan directives.
Presumption in Favor of Sustainable Development: Acknowledged the inspector’s judgment that the proposal aligned with sustainable development principles under NPPF Paragraph 14, which can override certain conflicts when balanced appropriately.
Balancing Material Considerations: The inspector's evaluation considered the inability of the district council to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land and the minimal impact on local congestion, which collectively justified the approval despite policy conflicts.

The court concluded that the inspector had not misapplied or misconstrued Policy 198 but had appropriately executed his duty under section 38(6) by considering the development plan as a whole and balancing the relevant factors.

Impact

This judgment has far-reaching implications for future planning cases, particularly in the context of:

Interplay Between Local and Neighbourhood Plans: Clarifies that conflicts with local plan policies can override neighbourhood plan considerations, especially when the neighbourhood plan does not explicitly address certain development scenarios.
Application of NPPF Policy 198: Reinforces the principle that planning permission should generally not be granted where there is a conflict with a neighbourhood plan, unless other material considerations tip the balance in favor of approval.
Judicial Deference to Administrative Decisions: Highlights the judiciary’s stance on respecting the expertise of planning inspectors and councils in balancing complex policy considerations, setting a precedent for limited court intervention unless clear errors are evident.

Planners and developers must navigate the comprehensive policy frameworks of both local and neighbourhood plans, ensuring alignment to avoid conflicts that could impede project approvals. Additionally, this case underscores the importance of robust evidence in demonstrating housing land supply to influence planning decisions favorably.

Complex Concepts Simplified

1. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Policy 198

This policy stipulates that if a planning application conflicts with a developed neighbourhood plan, the application should generally be denied. It serves as a directive to prioritize community-driven plans over individual proposals when inconsistencies arise.

2. Development Plan

The development plan is a comprehensive collection of all planning policies for a given area, including both local plans and neighbourhood plans. It guides decision-making on planning applications to ensure cohesive and sustainable development.

3. Settlement Boundaries

These are predefined geographic areas within which certain types of development are encouraged or permitted. Significant development outside these boundaries is typically subject to stricter controls to preserve rural character and manage growth sustainably.

4. Presumption in Favor of Sustainable Development

A principle that guides planning decisions towards projects that meet current needs without compromising future generations. Sustainable development considers environmental, social, and economic factors to ensure balanced growth.

5. Five-Year Housing Land Supply

Planners must demonstrate that there is sufficient land to meet future housing needs over the next five years. This ensures that development plans are aligned with projected growth and housing demand, preventing overdevelopment in certain areas.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Chichester District Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government & Anor underscores the critical balance between local and neighbourhood planning policies within the broader framework of the NPPF. By affirming the inspector’s discerning application of Policy 198, the judgment delineates the boundaries of judicial intervention in planning disputes, emphasizing adherence to established policy hierarchies and the necessity of comprehensive development plans.

Key takeaways include the reaffirmation of the statutory presumption in favor of the development plan, the importance of clear policy documentation, and the limited scope for conflict resolution when comprehensive plans are in place. Planners, developers, and local authorities must meticulously align their proposals with both local and neighbourhood plans to navigate the complex landscape of UK planning law effectively.

Ultimately, this case serves as a guiding reference for interpreting and applying planning policies, ensuring that sustainable and community-focused development remains at the forefront of urban and rural planning initiatives.