Parish council fails in High Court challenge to 1,200-home scheme

The High Court has rejected all the grounds of appeal argued by a parish council that wanted to prevent planning permission being given for an urban extension to Newton Abbot.

Abbotskerswell Parish Council took its case against the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government - whose inspector recommended permission be granted - and against Teignbridge District Council, which had failed to determine the application in time so leaving it open to appeal.

Other defendants were Antony, Steven and Jill Rew, whose family owned the 66.72 hectares site.

The parish council applied for review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 of the Secretary of State’s decision to allow the Rews’ application to build 1,210 homes, a primary school, up to 12,650 square metres of employment floorspace, two care homes, community facilities, retail/local centre floorspace, open space and associated infrastructure near Newton Abbot.

It also objected to the grant of full permission for a change of use of agricultural buildings to a hotel, restaurant and bar, involving new structures and an access road.

Teignbridge District Council resisted the application during the appeal on grounds of loss of biodiversity.

Abbotskerswell challenged the Secretary of State on the ground that he erred in law by granting planning permission without having assessed any material environmental information relating to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, in breach of the requirements of Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/92/EU and regulation 3(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011.

It also argued he erred in law by granting planning permission without first obtaining the requisite information on the likely significant effects on the greater horseshoe bat and further erred by granting planning permission in breach of regulation 70(3) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, which states that planning permission must not be granted where this would affect the integrity of a site with a European protected species.

Planning inspector Frances Mahoney found that the principle of a mixed-use development on the site “had been long established through appropriate and thorough planning processes” and that to question this principle would fundamentally undermine the strategies and objectives of the development plan which had been through consultation and examination and adoption by the council.

She described the Rews’ site as "being a sustainable urban extension to Newton Abbott in a highly sustainable location".

In Abbotskerswell Parish Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities & Ors [2021] EWHC 555  Mrs Justice Lang dismissed all grounds. She said: “Whatever the outcome of the greenhouse gas emission assessment, it is clear from the decision that the Secretary of State would not have re-opened the local plan strategy that considerably more homes were needed in the district, and that urban extensions were the most sustainable locations, because of the reduction in travel, and therefore carbon emissions.”

She found it was reasonable for the Secretary of State to conclude that the identification of bat corridors, habitats and ‘dark areas’ in the lighting strategy was best done in conjunction with the detailed design of the development.

Nothing done could be descried as irrational on Wednesbury grounds, Lang J concluded.

Mark Smulian