Significant Weight Applied to National Park Setting in Planning Decisions: Persimmon Homes (Thames Valley) Ltd v Worthing Borough Council ([2023] EWCA Civ 762)

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 the South Downs National Park (SDNP). Persimmon Homes sought approval for a development comprising 475 dwellings on Chatsmore Farm, a 20-hectare agricultural site outside the existing built-up area boundary (BUAB). The Worthing Borough Council initially refused planning permission based on conflicts with both local and national planning policies, leading Persimmon to appeal the decision. The case examines whether the inspector erred in applying relevant planning policies, particularly those concerning the preservation of National Parks.

Summary of the Judgment

The England and Wales Court of Appeal reviewed the decision made by an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. The lower court had quashed the inspector's decision to grant planning permission, finding errors in how local draft policies and national planning policies were considered, especially regarding the impact on the SDNP setting. However, upon appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed Persimmon's appeal, agreeing with the lower court's assessment that the inspector had indeed erred in his treatment of the draft local plan policies and the consideration of the National Park's setting. The appeal's dismissal upheld the council's refusal to grant planning permission, emphasizing the paramount importance of conserving national park settings in planning decisions.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents to underscore the principles governing planning decisions:

• Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd. [2017] UKSC 37: Emphasized that courts should only intervene in planning decisions if there is a clear error in law.
• St Modwen Developments Ltd. v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] EWCA Civ 1643: Highlighted the necessity for inspectors to provide clear and reasoned decisions.
• Bayliss v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWCA Civ 347: Clarified the interpretation of "great weight" in planning policies concerning Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
• Monkhill Ltd. v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2021] EWCA Civ 74: Addressed the application of sustainable development principles in the face of national planning policies.

Legal Reasoning

The court meticulously examined whether the inspector adhered to both local and national planning policies. Central to this was the interpretation and application of paragraph 176 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which mandates that "great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks."

The inspector had concluded that while the development would cause some moderate adverse impacts on the views from within the SDNP, these did not "materially affect" the setting of the National Park. The Court of Appeal scrutinized this reasoning, finding that the inspector failed to adequately demonstrate how the "great weight" principle was applied. Specifically, the inspector did not sufficiently correlate the identified harm with the requirement to conserve and enhance the National Park's landscape, leading to a potential breach of section 11A of the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949.

Furthermore, the inspector's handling of the emerging local plan policies SS1 and SS4 was deemed inadequate. The interplay between these draft policies and the established Policy 13 of the Worthing Core Strategy was not sufficiently addressed, resulting in a failure to consider material considerations that should influence the planning balance.

Impact

This judgment underscores the critical importance of correctly applying national planning policies, especially those related to National Parks. It sets a precedent that inspectors must provide clear and comprehensive reasoning when balancing development needs against environmental protections. Future cases involving developments within or affecting National Parks will likely reference this decision to ensure that "great weight" principles are meticulously observed and transparently articulated in planning decisions.

Additionally, the dismissal of the appeal reinforces the authority of local planning policies and their integration with national frameworks. Developers must now approach planning applications with a heightened awareness of not only existing policies but also emerging ones, ensuring that their proposals align with both current and forthcoming strategic objectives.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Persimmon Homes (Thames Valley) Ltd v Worthing Borough Council reinforces the supremacy of national planning policies in safeguarding environmentally sensitive areas such as National Parks. By dismissing the appeal, the court affirmed that planning inspectors must rigorously apply policies like paragraph 176 of the NPPF, ensuring that significant harms to natural landscapes are appropriately weighed against development benefits. This judgment serves as a crucial reminder to developers and local authorities alike about the paramount importance of environmental conservation in the planning process, particularly within the settings of protected areas.

Ultimately, this case delineates the boundaries within which planning decisions must operate, ensuring that the preservation of natural beauty and cultural heritage remains a cornerstone of development planning in the UK.