social housing rules ok

On 29 July 2010, in the case of Barratt Developments Plc v Wakefield MDC the Court of Appeal decided that a local planning authority had been entitled to adopt a development strategy that laid down a requirement that all proposals for future developments for additional housing should contain at least 30 per cent affordable housing.

The local authority's development strategy stated that all proposals for additional housing should provide for at least 30 per cent affordable housing. The local authority instructed development consultants to provide an economic viability appraisal of the strategy for affordable housing. The consultants concluded that having regard to the prevailing market conditions there was little scope to deliver any affordable housing, but that a range of affordable housing up to 30 per cent could be delivered and that any delivery had to be flexible and have built-in trigger points that enabled further delivery as the market improved.

Barratt complained that, amongst other things, the 30 per cent requirement in the strategy was unreasonable, (but made no complaint about the approach to economic viability). A planning inspector (X) held that on the basis of the consultants appraisal 30 per cent affordable housing could be achieved in the majority of cases, and that the strategy was sound. Barratt's challenge to the policy was rejected. Barratt submitted that (1) the 30 per cent starting point was flawed as it had been produced on the basis of material that was not supported by the relevant policy guidance and ignored the economic viability of the relevant target; (2) the policy contained a mandatory requirement for affordable housing in all future residential developments, which was incompatible with the evidence of the appraisal.

The court decided that:

X had plainly had regard to the issue of economic viability and had taken steps to ensure that she was provided with adequate evidence to make a judgment on it. There was nothing to suggest that it would be illegal or irrational, following such an economic evaluation, to adopt a percentage target at the top of the expected range
it was clear that the correct interpretation of the policy did not contain a mandatory requirement for affordable housing