星空传媒

I was recently asked by the Planning Inspectorate to address a group of inspectors on planning and affordable housing. The very high attendance demonstrated the fact that planning inspectors are increasingly being required to arbitrate in disputes concerning this subject. Their decisions carry considerable weight by setting precedents for future decision-making by local authorities, especially when they are challenged and upheld in the courts.

Many of the difficulties that registered social landlords experience with the planning system derive from the priority that local authorities choose to attach to affordable housing within the development plan-led system, and relative to particular applications.

Although affordable housing has been a material planning consideration since 1992, it remains just one of many considerations that planners have to take into account. PPG3, the planning policy guidance note that deals with the provision of housing on brownfield land and high-density sites, is just one of 25 such notes issued on a whole range of matters including flooding, public open space, conservation and listed buildings, archaeology, ecology and nature conservation and transport. All of them are integral to the planning system.

Difficulties also arise from lack of clarity in government guidance contained in PPG3 and Circular 6/98, which sets out the government's preferred approach to the provision of affordable housing and is shortly to be revised.

For instance, one of the most important recent planning appeal decisions on affordable housing concerns a greenfield site on the edge of Lymm in the borough of Warrington, Cheshire. This site had a capacity of 200 dwellings of which 100 were proposed to be affordable. It was agreed between the appellants and the council that there was no need for the land to be released for development to meet any overall housing requirements.

However, the appellants' principal argument was that there was a very serious shortage of affordable housing in the borough and, although there was no realistic prospect of meeting these needs in the future, the proposal would make a major contribution to the supply of affordable housing in the area.

The tenets of PPG3 are not always complementary and that is the source of many difficulties RSLs have with the planning system

There were several other material considerations to set against this: a recent appeal decision (subsequently quashed by the High Court) had regarded the site as being within the approved green belt; the area around the site had an "attractive semi-rural character and appearance that is clearly valued by local residents" and the council's draft unitary development plan, the first round of consultation upon which had recently been completed, presumed that this site was one of several safeguarded for future development after 2016.

The inspector also had to weigh the principal tenets of PPG3, which are not necessarily complementary to one another. Launching PPG3 in March 2000, deputy prime minister John Prescott summarised these as follows: the "sequential approach" by which brownfield sites are prioritised ahead of greenfield sites; increasing densities and making more efficient use of land; providing more affordable housing; and promoting high-quality sustainable communities. These four strands do not always pull in the same direction, as recognised by the inspector in the Lymm case. He concluded: "The provision of a substantial amount of affordable housing within the development, aimed at helping to meet a clearly demonstrated borough-wide need, amounts to a compelling material consideration in the scheme's favour. This outweighs conflict with the thrust of PPG3 in respect of the sequential approach to development, the supply of housing land generally and emerging UDP policy aimed at safeguarding the land for future development." The planning appeal was allowed.

Warrington council, however, challenged the decision in the High Court and the secretary of state chose not to defend the inspector's decision, which was initially quashed. Nevertheless, the original appellants took the matter to the Court of Appeal and the inspector's decision to grant planning permission has recently been upheld, with leave for further appeal to the House of Lords rejected.

This is a highly significant judgment.

Lord Justice Pill said: "The inspector's reasoning is wholly persuasive. It gave great weight to a current need for affordable housing which was not being met and that consideration, in his view, outweighed other considerations which he set out fully and clearly in his decision."