Mrs Justice Lang has decided in the strongest terms that Gladman do not have a case to answer at the High Court.
This decision was upheld at a brief oral hearing subsequently. Any further applications for development at the site would be assessed in the context of this decision.
The reasons cited by the Judge are the following:
In my view, Ground 1 has no prospect of success. The Inspector reviewed the different assessments of housing need placed before him and formed the overall conclusion that the Second Defendant could demonstrate a three year housing supply. That was a reasonable and lawful planning judgment. Unmet need from neighbouring areas can be considered separately from the local housing need figure - see NPPF 60. In any event, the Inspector went on to assess the proposed development according to the standard planning balance and the tilted balance under NPPF 11 (d). On both assessments he reached the clear conclusion that planning permission should be refused, despite giving very significant weight to the provision of new housing.
The allegation that the Inspector made a mistake of fact in DL43, or contradicted DL24, seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the decision. As stated above, the Inspector was entitled to treat unmet need from neighbouring areas separately from the local housing need figure- see NPPF 60. At DL43 he was deliberately using the figures from table 4.3, as the First Defendant explains in his Summary Grounds.
But, in any event, in the light of the Inspector's planning judgments on the proposal, Form PC SRJ 14 v. June 2017 Statutory Review Permission Refused [LA claim] there is no prospect that his conclusion would have been any different if had assessed the benefits of new housing on the basis of a housing land supply of between 3.11 and 3.87 years."