Chichester District Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, District Council, appealed against the decision of a deputy High Court judge who dismissed its application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The application challenged an inspector's decision to allow an appeal by Developer against the refusal of planning permission for up to 34 dwellings on undeveloped land outside the settlement boundary of a village, as defined in the relevant Neighbourhood Plan. The inspector found conflict with certain local plan policies and that the proposal did not accord with the "aim" of the Neighbourhood Plan for housing location, but concluded no conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan’s policies themselves. The District Council could not demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, and the inspector applied the presumption in favour of sustainable development under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), allowing the appeal. The High Court judge upheld the inspector’s decision, and permission to appeal was granted.

Legal Issues Presented

1. When does a proposal for housing development engage the policy in paragraph 198 of the NPPF that where a planning application "conflicts" with a neighbourhood plan, "permission should not normally be granted"?
2. Whether the inspector erred in law in his understanding and application of paragraph 198 of the NPPF, or failed to apply it.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The proposal was plainly in conflict with both the aims and the policies of the Neighbourhood Plan.
• The inspector should have found conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan as the site was rejected during its preparation and was outside the settlement boundary established by Policy 1.
• The proposal was contrary to Policy 2 as it was not on an allocated site, contradicting the parish council’s judgment on suitable locations.
• Distinguishing between the aims of the Neighbourhood Plan and its policies, and concluding no conflict with the policies but conflict with the aims, was irrational and inconsistent with paragraph 198 of the NPPF.
• The inspector’s failure to reach a clear conclusion on conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan was an error.
• The inspector’s approach was inconsistent with recent case law, including Gladman Developments Ltd. v Canterbury City Council and Crane.

Respondents' Arguments (Secretary of State and Developer)

• The inspector’s approach was correct and the judge’s analysis was sound.
• The proposal conflicted with the local plan policies, not the Neighbourhood Plan policies, and the inspector properly distinguished this.
• The circumstances were distinguishable from Crane and Gladman as the conflict was with explicit local plan policies governing development outside settlement boundaries.
• The inspector did not misconstrue, misapply, or fail to apply paragraph 198 of the NPPF.
• The local plan and Neighbourhood Plan together form the comprehensive development plan, with complementary and consistent policies.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the statutory framework under section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan here comprised two complementary parts: the Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan, both adopted for the same period. The Local Plan contained explicit policies (Policies 2 and 45) restricting development outside settlement boundaries, while the Neighbourhood Plan contained policies allocating sites within settlement boundaries but did not address unallocated sites outside those boundaries.

The inspector correctly identified that the proposal conflicted with the Local Plan policies governing development outside settlement boundaries but did not conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan policies themselves, as those policies were silent on such development. The inspector distinguished between the "aims" of the Neighbourhood Plan and its policies, finding that while the proposal did not accord with the plan’s aims, it was not in conflict with its policies. This distinction was upheld as rational and lawful.

The court emphasised that paragraph 198 of the NPPF does not elevate the status of neighbourhood plans above other parts of the development plan, nor does it alter the statutory presumption in favour of the development plan as a whole. The inspector applied the statutory presumption, gave appropriate weight to the conflict with the Local Plan, and considered material considerations including the lack of a five-year housing land supply and the proposal’s sustainable location.

The court found no legal error in the inspector’s approach to paragraph 198 of the NPPF or in his planning judgment. The decision was distinguished from previous authorities where neighbourhood plans contained comprehensive policies explicitly capping or allocating housing, which was not the case here. The court also noted that even if the inspector had erred in not finding conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan, the outcome would not have been different, and discretion to grant relief would have been withheld.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal, affirming the inspector’s decision and the High Court judge’s dismissal of the section 288 application.

The direct consequence is that planning permission for the proposed housing development was lawfully granted despite conflict with certain local plan policies and the aims of the Neighbourhood Plan. The decision clarifies that paragraph 198 of the NPPF must be applied in the context of the entire development plan and does not automatically preclude permission where a neighbourhood plan is silent or does not expressly conflict. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles to the facts of a split development plan comprising complementary local and neighbourhood plans.