Oadby And Wigston Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Oadby And Wigston Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The inspector lawfully exercised planning judgment in rejecting the SHMA’s apportionment of housing need as untested and potentially 'policy on', and was entitled to identify the relevant housing requirement for the local authority area based on the evidence before him. The NPPF does not require automatic acceptance of SHMA figures in development control decisions where there is no tested or agreed apportionment. The High Court judge was correct to uphold the inspector’s approach as lawful.

Parties
Appellant: Oadby and Wigston Borough Council; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: Bloor Homes Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal (planning) / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Housing Supply, National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Objective Assessment of Housing Need, Development Control, Plan Making, Affordable Housing, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions
Administrative Law Planning Law Housing Supply National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Objective Assessment of Housing Need Development Control Plan Making Affordable Housing +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oadby and Wigston Borough Council

Appellant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

Bloor Homes Ltd.

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal (planning) / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector erred in law in his understanding and application of government policy for housing development in the NPPF when determining an appeal against a local planning authority’s refusal of planning permission for housing on an unallocated site.
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in holding that the inspector had neither misinterpreted nor unlawfully applied government policy in the relevant passages of the NPPF, particularly paragraphs 47, 49, 157, 158, and 159.

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector lawfully exercised planning judgment in rejecting the SHMA’s apportionment of housing need as untested and potentially 'policy on', and was entitled to identify the relevant housing requirement for the local authority area based on the evidence before him. The NPPF does not require automatic acceptance of SHMA figures in development control decisions where there is no tested or agreed apportionment. The High Court judge was correct to uphold the inspector’s approach as lawful.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.