Court of Appeal hands down ruling on National Planning Policy Framework and meaning of “isolated homes in the countryside”

The Court of Appeal has rejected a series of appeals brought by a developer over the future of the former policing college at Bramshill.

In City & Country Bramshill Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 320  Senior President of Tribunals Sir Keith Lindblom, with whom Lord Justice Arnold and Lord Justice  Phillips agreed, ruled against City & Country Bramshill in a case it brought against the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Hart District Council, Historic England and the National Trust.

The case concerned the meaning in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) of “isolated homes in the countryside” and assessment of harm and benefit to heritage assets.

Bramshill is a site of some 106 hectares, which contains a grade I listed Jacobean mansion, a grade I registered park and garden and various other structures.

City & Country Bramshill’s development was rejected by Hart District Council and the company lodged 33 appeals.

The first was for conversion of the mansion to 16 apartments and the adjoining stable block to five, the second the mansion’s conversion to a single dwelling and the third to B1 office space.

Another three appeals were for construction of 235 houses in place of some existing buildings, and additional 14 to the site’s south-west, and nine to the north of its existing lake while the rest concerned the use as private dwellings of 51 homes formerly occupied by college staff.

After a lengthy appeal a planning inspector allowed the developer's case on converting the mansion to a single home or office space and quashed enforcement notices issued for most of the 51 homes.

She also though dismissed the other grounds and City & Country Bramshill's application for costs against Hart.

City & Country Bramshill challenged her decisions on that appeals that were still disputed in High Court and was partly successful.

But Waksman J upheld the inspector’s decision on costs. The company then challenged the remaining cases and the costs question in the Court of Appeal.

Sir Keith said there were four principal issues: whether the inspector erred in law in her interpretation and application of the policy against “isolated homes in the countryside" in the NPPF; whether she erred in her approach to sustainability; whether, in performing the duty in section 66 of the Listed Buildings Act she failed to comply with a principle in R. (on the application of Palmer) v Herefordshire Council; and whether she erred in her approach to applying development plan policies for the protection of the historic environment. The developer also argued that the costs decision was unlawful.

Dismissing all these grounds, Sir Keith said that on policy for isolated homes in the countryside, “she applied the policy reasonably and lawfully to the proposals before her. She made no error of law in either respect, and there is no reason here for the court to intervene.”

He said the concept of "isolated homes in the countryside” was not one of law but part of planning policy undefined in the NPPF and “does not lend itself to rigorous judicial analysis…its application will depend on the facts of the case, and decision-makers will have to exercise their planning judgment in a wide variety of circumstances”.

The inspector's approach to sustainability was lawful and she was not legally at fault in her understanding and application of the NPPF for the location of housing development.

Sir Keith said her assessment on sustainable transport - which resulted in her conclusion that the proposed development would not provide a genuine choice of transport modes as required by national and local policies - “betrays no legal error.”.

He said the inspector had correctly applied the law on heritage assets and had not erred in her consideration of development plan policies for historic environment.

On the costs issue City & Country Bramshill argued that in making her decision the inspector relied on her decisions in the appeals and some were quashed by the High Court.

Sir Keith said: “I see no reason to upset the inspector's decision on costs. She approached the application in the conventional way. Her decision did not depend on the grounds the council had relied upon in opposing the appeals having succeeded or failed when considered on their merits, but on whether they could reasonably be advanced.

“The decision is unsurprising. And it is also legally sound.”

Mark Smulian