Peel Investments (North) Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing Communities And Local Government & Anor [2019] EWHC 2143 (Admin) (02 August 2019)

Peel Investments (North) Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing Communities And Local Government & Anor [2019] EWHC 2143 (Admin) (02 August 2019)

The court held that the Secretary of State did not err in law. Policy EN2 was not out-of-date, as it remained consistent with the NPPF and its objectives were still relevant. The absence of saved strategic housing policies did not render the plan silent or out-of-date, as policy EN2 specifically applied to the site. The housing land supply was numerically sufficient, and any deficiencies in type or mix were material considerations but did not trigger the 'tilted balance'. The Secretary of State lawfully gave substantial weight to the conflict with EN2 and R4 and was entitled to conclude that the harm outweighed the benefits. The claim was dismissed.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2143 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Peel Investments (North) Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Salford City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (s.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Development Plan Policies, National Planning Policy Framework, Housing Land Supply, Out of Date Policies, Sustainable Development, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Local Government Law Development Plan Policies National Planning Policy Framework Housing Land Supply Out of Date Policies Sustainable Development +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peel Investments (North) Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Salford City Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (s.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State erred in law in refusing planning permission by misapplying or misinterpreting development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
  2. 2 Whether relevant development plan policies (notably EN2 and R4) were out-of-date, triggering the 'tilted balance' under the NPPF
  3. 3 Whether the housing land supply was adequate and properly assessed

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Secretary of State did not err in law. Policy EN2 was not out-of-date, as it remained consistent with the NPPF and its objectives were still relevant. The absence of saved strategic housing policies did not render the plan silent or out-of-date, as policy EN2 specifically applied to the site. The housing land supply was numerically sufficient, and any deficiencies in type or mix were material considerations but did not trigger the 'tilted balance'. The Secretary of State lawfully gave substantial weight to the conflict with EN2 and R4 and was entitled to conclude that the harm outweighed the benefits. The claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application to quash the Secretary of State's decision refused
  • Planning permission remains refused for the proposed developments