Introduction

In the case of Persimmon Homes (Thames Valley) Ltd v Worthing Borough Council ([2023] EWCA Civ 762), the central issue revolved around the legality of granting planning permission for a substantial mixed-use development within the setting of a National Park. Persimmon Homes, a prominent housing developer, sought approval for a development comprising 475 dwellings on agricultural land in Goring-by-Sea. The initial refusal by Worthing Borough Council was contested by Persimmon, leading to a series of appeals that ultimately reached the England and Wales Court of Appeal.

The core legal questions addressed whether the planning inspector correctly applied both local and national planning policies, particularly concerning the impact on the setting of the South Downs National Park and adherence to emerging local plan policies SS1 and SS4. The parties involved included Persimmon Homes as the appellant, Worthing Borough Council as the first respondent, and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities as the second respondent.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal examined whether the planning inspector made legal errors in assessing Persimmon's application. Initially, the lower court had found that the inspector erred in not adequately addressing conflicts between the proposed development and two emerging policies (SS1 and SS4) in the local plan, as well as in misapplying national policy concerning the National Park's setting.

Upon review, the appellate court concluded that the inspector did not err in considering the emerging local plan policies SS1 and SS4. However, it determined that the inspector did err in his assessment of the development's impact on the setting of the South Downs National Park, particularly in failing to appropriately apply the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 176, which mandates giving "great weight" to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of National Parks.

Despite recognizing the inspector's misapplication regarding the National Park, the Court of Appeal ultimately dismissed Persimmon's appeal. The judges determined that the errors did not sufficiently undermine the overall decision, thereby upholding the lower court's order quashing the inspector's decision.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced several key precedents that influenced the court's reasoning:

• Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd. [2017] UKSC 37: Emphasized that courts should not interfere with planning judgments unless there is a clear legal error.
• St Modwen Developments Ltd. v Secretary of State [2017] EWCA Civ 1643: Reinforced the principle that planning decisions should be respected unless plainly wrong.
• Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1314: Highlighted that not all errors in planning decisions warrant judicial intervention.
• Bayliss v Secretary of State [2014] EWCA Civ 347: Clarified the interpretation of "great weight" in planning policies.
• Monkhill Ltd. v Secretary of State [2021] EWCA Civ 74: Discussed the balance between policy adherence and sustainable development principles.

Legal Reasoning

The court delved into the inspector's application of both local and national planning policies. It assessed whether the inspector appropriately balanced the need for housing against environmental considerations, particularly the protection of the National Park's setting. The key legal principles evaluated included:

• Application of NPPF Paragraph 176: Obligates planners to give significant weight to conserving the natural beauty of designated areas.
• Emerging Local Plans: Guidelines on how policies within drafts should be weighted, especially regarding their stage of development and consistency with national frameworks.
• Section 11A of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949: Mandates authorities to prioritize conservation over other land use considerations when conflicts arise.

The court concluded that while the inspector appropriately considered policies SS1 and SS4, there was a failure in adequately applying the policy concerning the National Park's setting. The inspector's inconsistent treatment of moderate adverse impacts without appropriately weighing them against the national policy was identified as a legal error.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the paramount importance of adhering to national planning policies, especially concerning sensitive environmental areas like National Parks. It underscores that while local plans and emerging policies are significant, they must align with overarching national frameworks to ensure sustainable and legally compliant development. Future cases involving development near or within protected areas will likely reference this judgment to evaluate the balance between development needs and environmental conservation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Persimmon Homes (Thames Valley) Ltd v Worthing Borough Council case serves as a pivotal reference in the realm of planning law, particularly concerning developments that intersect with protected environmental areas. The Court of Appeal's decision to dismiss Persimmon's appeal, despite acknowledging the inspector's error regarding the National Park's setting, emphasizes the judiciary's restraint and the necessity for comprehensive legal reasoning in planning decisions.

The judgment underscores the critical balance planners must maintain between facilitating housing development and safeguarding environmental and community interests. It reaffirms that while local and emerging policies are integral to planning decisions, they must harmonize with national policies to ensure sustainable and legally sound outcomes. Future cases will undoubtedly draw upon the principles elucidated in this judgment, shaping the landscape of planning law and its application in sensitive areas.