Housing Land Supply and Policy Relevance: The 'Tilted Balance' in Planning Decisions – Oxton Farm v Harrogate Borough Council ([2020] EWCA Civ 805)

Introduction

The case of Oxton Farm v Harrogate Borough Council ([2020] EWCA Civ 805) addresses the lawful granting of planning permission by Harrogate Borough Council ("Harrogate") for the development of 21 new houses and a village shop on land situated at Turnpike Lane, Bickerton, North Yorkshire. This appeal challenges the Council's decision, questioning whether it adhered to relevant planning policies and legal frameworks, particularly concerning housing land supply and the applicability of the Core Strategy Policies SG1, SG2, and SG3.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of HHJ Klein, who had previously deemed the grant of planning permission lawful. The primary contention revolved around whether Harrogate's approval aligned with policy SG3 of its Core Strategy, which imposes strict controls over new developments in areas classified as countryside and Green Belt. The appellant, Oxton Farm, argued that the Council's decision did not comply with the established policies and that essential considerations, such as updated housing needs based on ONS statistics, were overlooked.

The Court meticulously analyzed the application of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), particularly the concept of the "tilted balance," which comes into play when certain policies are deemed out of date or when there is a marginal housing land supply. The judgment concluded that Harrogate's planning officer correctly engaged the tilted balance based on outdated Core Strategy policies rather than solely on the marginal housing supply. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Council's decision to grant planning permission.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents that inform the interpretation and application of planning laws:

• R (Client Earth) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2020] EWHC 1303 (Admin) – Emphasizes the necessity for claimants to demonstrate that a relevant consideration was not taken into account if alleging a failure in planning decisions.
• Hopkins Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] UKSC 37 – Highlights that determining whether a policy is out of date is a matter of planning judgment rather than a strict legal rule.
• R (Watermead Parish Council) v Aylesbury Vale DC [2017] EWCA Civ 152 – Establishes that planning officers' reports should be read with reasonable benevolence and that the court only intervenes if there is significant misdirection.
• Hallam Land Management Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2018] EWCA Civ 1808 – Clarifies that the NPPF does not dictate the weight given to housing land supply and that such determinations are at the discretion of the decision-maker.
• Eastleigh Borough Council v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government [2019] EWHC 1862 (Admin) – Reinforces that the weight attached to housing land supply is a matter of planning judgment and not subject to legal prescripts.
• R (CPRE Kent) v Dover District Council [2017] UKSC 79 and R (Oakley) v South Cambridgeshire District Council [2017] EWCA Civ 71 – Discuss circumstances under which a common law duty to provide reasons for planning decisions arises.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's reasoning hinged on the correct application of the NPPF, particularly regarding the assessment of housing land supply and the relevance of existing policies in the development plan. The NPPF mandates that local planning authorities demonstrate a minimum five-year supply of deliverable housing sites to approve development proposals without delving into the tilted balance.

In this case, Harrogate's assessment revealed a marginal five-year housing land supply (5.02 years), which did not sufficiently exceed the required threshold to disregard policy considerations. Furthermore, the Court examined whether policies SG1, SG2, and SG3 were outdated. It was determined that these policies, based on an older housing target, were indeed out of date. Consequently, the tilted balance was rightfully engaged based on the outdated policies rather than solely on the marginal housing supply.

The appellant's argument that the latest ONS statistics should mandate the use of the standard method for calculating housing needs was dismissed. The Court clarified that while the standard method provides a minimum baseline, it is not mandatory. Local planning authorities retain discretion to adopt alternative justified methods that may result in higher housing targets, thereby influencing the engagement of the tilted balance.

Additionally, the Court addressed the issue of whether Harrogate was required to provide reasons for its decision. It concluded that since the Planning Committee followed the officer's recommendation without departing from it, there was no necessity to impose a common law duty to provide additional reasons.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future planning decisions, particularly in how local authorities assess and apply housing land supply in conjunction with their development policies. Key impacts include:

• Clarification of the 'Tilted Balance': Reinforces that the tilted balance under the NPPF is engaged not merely based on housing land supply metrics but can also stem from outdated core policies.
• Flexibility in Housing Need Assessment: Affirms that local authorities can utilize alternative methods beyond the standard method for assessing housing needs, provided they are justified and yield more ambitious targets.
• Judicial Deference to Planning Judgments: Emphasizes that courts will not interfere with the weight decisions of planning authorities unless there is clear evidence of legal error or significant misdirection.
• Policy Relevance Over Metrics: Highlights the primacy of current and relevant policies over numerical thresholds, allowing for a more nuanced approach to sustainable development.
• Denial of Mandatory Reasoning: Clarifies that planning authorities are not universally obligated to provide detailed reasons for their decisions unless specific conditions warrant such disclosure.

Consequently, this case sets a precedent that empowers local planning authorities to exercise greater discretion in their planning judgments, balancing quantitative metrics with qualitative policy assessments.

Complex Concepts Simplified

To better understand the intricate legal concepts at play, let's break down some of the key terms and principles:

• National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): A key document in UK planning policy, setting out the government's planning policies for England and how these are to be applied. It emphasizes sustainable development and provides a framework for decision-making.
• 'Tilted Balance': A principle within the NPPF that comes into relevance when certain policies are deemed out of date or when housing land supply is marginal. It guides decision-makers to weigh the benefits of development against any adverse impacts more carefully under these circumstances.
• Five-Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS): A metric used to assess whether a local authority has enough deliverable sites to meet the housing needs for the next five years. A supply exceeding five years generally supports the approval of new housing projects.
• Core Strategy Policies (SG1, SG2, SG3): These are specific policies adopted by Harrogate to guide development within its jurisdiction. SG1 focuses on housing numbers and affordability, SG2 on development limits around key settlements, and SG3 on strict controls over countryside and Green Belt development.
• Outdated Policies: Policies within a development plan that are based on outdated targets or assessments, making them less relevant to current planning needs and objectives.

Conclusion

The Oxton Farm v Harrogate Borough Council case underscores the delicate balance that local planning authorities must maintain between adhering to established policies and responding to evolving housing needs. By affirming the engagement of the tilted balance based on outdated policies rather than solely on marginal housing supply, the Court of Appeal reinforced the necessity for planning decisions to be grounded in current and relevant policies.

This judgment serves as a crucial reference point for future planning disputes, highlighting the importance of comprehensive and up-to-date development plans. It also delineates the boundaries of judicial intervention, emphasizing respect for the discretionary role of planning authorities unless there is manifest legal error.

For legal practitioners and stakeholders in the planning sector, this case offers valuable insights into the interpretation of the NPPF and the application of the tilted balance, guiding more informed and compliant planning strategies moving forward.