Staffordshire homes row goes to Court of Appeal

David Wilson Homes had seen its plans for 114 dwellings at Walton Heath, Common Lane, Stone, Staffordshire rejected first by Stafford Borough Council then, on appeal, by a Government planning inspector.

However, in the High Court last April, Mr Justice Hickinbottom quashed the inspector's decision and ordered the Communities Secretary to have the application looked at again.

And now the Government is asking the Court of Appeal to reverse that ruling and restore the inspector's decision with no need for a reconsideration.

The Court has reserved its judgment on the appeal and will give a ruling in writing at a later date.

Richard Kimblin, representing the Communities Secretary argued that the judge had taken the wrong approach in his consideration of the case.

The Council refused planning permission in March 2014 due to the amount of additional traffic generated by the proposed development, which it felt would result in unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance for neighbouring residents.

In October 2014, a planning inspector agreed and dismissed the developer's appeal.

However, quashing that decision, the High Court judge said that the inspector had failed to consider whether the proposal complied with the Council's development plan as a whole.

David Wilson Homes had argued that she did not decide whether it was in accord with the plan or not, and simply adopted a presumption against the development.

Though confessing that he did not find this an "easy issue", the judge said that he had been persuaded by the argument advanced on behalf of the developer.

He said: "It was necessary for the inspector, having found the development to have been in conflict with one policy within the development plan, to proceed to determine whether the development was or was not in accordance with the plan as a whole.

"Looking at the inspector's decision in a suitably straightforward way, even given that it was written for a knowledgeable audience, it is not possible to say that the inspector grappled with this issue. Therefore, regrettably, the inspector erred in law."

Richard Kimblin, representing the Communities Secretary, argued that the decision clears the way for disappointed applicants for planning permission to challenge decisions even when they can identify no particular policy that was left out of account.

Here, he said, the judge made the error of assuming other policies in the development plan assisted the application, when in fact none have been identified.

As a result, he said that there "could not have been and should not have been any valid criticism of the appeal decision".

Hugh Richards, representing the developer, argued that the judge had been "correct in law" to quash the decision, and sought to persuade the Court of Appeal to uphold the earlier ruling.