St Modwen Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

St Modwen Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Inspector and Secretary of State did not err in law in their interpretation of the NPPF regarding deliverability and availability of housing sites; planning permission is not required for inclusion in the five-year supply. The SHMA-based housing requirement was lawful. The £6m bridge contribution was not necessary or proportionate and was properly discounted. The Inspector's and Secretary of State's conclusions were rational and adequately reasoned.

Parties
Claimant: St Modwen Developments Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: East Riding of Yorkshire Council; Interested Party: Save Our Ferriby Action Group
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (s288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Housing Land Supply, Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Deliverability of Housing Sites, Strategic Housing Market Assessment (shma), Planning Obligations, Affordable Housing, Employment Land Allocation
Planning Law Administrative Law Local Government Law Housing Land Supply Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Deliverability of Housing Sites Strategic Housing Market Assessment (shma) Planning Obligations +2 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

St Modwen Developments Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

East Riding of Yorkshire Council

Second Defendant

Save Our Ferriby Action Group

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (s288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector and Secretary of State erred in law in interpreting NPPF [47] and footnote 11 regarding deliverability and availability of housing sites for five-year supply.
  2. 2 Whether the assessment of housing requirement should be based on the local planning authority area or the Strategic Housing Market Area (SHMA).
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector lawfully discounted the £6m bridge contribution offered as a planning obligation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector and Secretary of State did not err in law in their interpretation of the NPPF regarding deliverability and availability of housing sites; planning permission is not required for inclusion in the five-year supply. The SHMA-based housing requirement was lawful. The £6m bridge contribution was not necessary or proportionate and was properly discounted. The Inspector's and Secretary of State's conclusions were rational and adequately reasoned.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed