High Court judge refuses developer permission to bring statutory review over refusal of 1,400-home scheme

Mrs Justice Lang has dismissed as unarguable all six grounds advanced by housebuilder Redrow Homes to bring a statutory review of a planning permission refusal.

Redrow had brought the case in the High Court against the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Dacorum Borough Council seeking review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

It wanted to challenge the Secretary of State’s dismissal of its appeal against Dacorum’s refusal of an application to build up to 1,400 homes at Tring, even though  a planning inspector had recommended that permission be given.

A clerical error had given the impression the Secretary of State felt the proposal conflicted with parts of the development plan but the judge said it was clear from reading the decision letter as a whole that this was not the case and she was satisfied the secretary of state would have reached the same conclusion even if the error had not occurred.

Redrow’s second ground was that the Secretary of State ignored its provision of 45% affordable housing, well above the minimum required by planning policy.

Lang J said the Secretary of State “was plainly aware that the proposal would provide above policy levels of affordable housing and took this factor into account” and so the ground was unarguable.

She dismissed a third ground on Dacorum’s lack of a five year land supply  She noted the Secretary of State was aware of this but had concluded green belt and other environmental issues meant the project should be refused and had been entitled to decide this.

Redrow’s unsuccessful fourth ground was that the inspector treated the failure to progress an up-to-date plan as an individual material consideration accorded separate weight for the purpose of considering “very special circumstances" and "other considerations” under NPPF 152 to 153.

Lang J said the Secretary of State has “wide discretion as to how to factor the failure to deliver an up-to-date plan into his decision making”. She additionally dismissed a ground about the ecological merits of the scheme.

Redrow’s final ground concerned failure to disclose post-inquiry representations so it could comment on them, which the builder claimed was in breach of rule 17(5)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000

The judge said this was unarguable as these representations did not affect the Secretary of State’s decision and Redrow was not prejudiced by the lack of an opportunity to make responses.

Mark Smulian