Planning decision of Communities Secretary quashed over “complete volte face”

The Communities Secretary performed “a complete and unexplained volte face” in his assessment of the highways impacts of two proposals for development on the same site in Newmarket, a Planning Court judge has ruled.

In Moulton Parish Council & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] EWHC 1047 (Admin) Mr Justice Gilbart said the minister had also failed to apply his own National Planning Policy Framework when he refused permission for construction of up to 400 dwellings at Hatchfield Farm.

The judge added that there was no reason to think that the decision would have been the same had he not failed in those two respects, and that the decision must therefore be quashed.

The claimants were Moulton Parish Council and Lord Derby, who owns the estate where the site was located. The Communities Secretary, supported by those representing some of the horse racing industry (the Newmarket Horsemen’s Group or NHG), had denied the claims. Forest Heath District Council did not oppose the claim.

The Communities Secretary had refused to grant permission, against the recommendation of a planning inspector following a public inquiry in April and May 2015.

Mr Justice Gilbart said: “There is on any view a requirement for more land for housing and other economic development in the Forest Heath District. The local Parish Councils (of which Moulton is one) have for some time argued that growth should not be dispersed amongst the rural parishes, but should be concentrated in Newmarket. The NHG and some others are concerned that that may have an adverse effect on the horseracing industry that is based there.”

The grounds of challenge were that:

1. The Secretary of State had failed to apply his own policies at paragraph 14 in the NPPF;
2. The Secretary of State had failed to give any reasons why he was reaching a conclusion about the Rayes Lane crossing which was inconsistent with his first Decision Letter, or take his previous decision into account;
3. The minister’s conclusion that there would be an increased risk from increased traffic at the Rayes Lane crossing had no evidential, relevant to rational foundation;
4. The Secretary of State had misinterpreted and therefore misapplied Policy DM48.

Mr Justice Gilbart concluded that the claim succeeded on grounds 1 and 2.