The Earl of Derby's appeal against Forest Heath District Council's decision to refuse permission argued that the development area had been identified by the Council as a suitable location for development.
However the Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector's recommendation that the appeal be dismissed, because "it would be premature to permit this strategic scheme on a site which may or may not be chosen when properly evaluated through the democratic development plan process" the decision letter said.
Local interest groups in Newmarket had been successful in setting aside the adopted Core Strategy polices relating to the spatial distribution of housing, which had left the Council with the task of undertaking a Single Issue Review of housing targets and strategic land allocation.
"Whilst the Single Issue Review was at an early stage, this appeal decision gave significant weight to the importance of not pre-empting strategic site evaluation as part of the democratic development plan process," said planning expert Jo Miles of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com.
Planning permission can be refused on the grounds of prematurity if granting that permission would prejudice a development plan which is being prepared and is not yet in force by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development.
The decision letter said that dismissing the appeal would "give local residents an opportunity to influence the planning of their own communities".
Miles said the decision shows that the Government’s localism agenda is alive and well, despite the first wave of prematurity cases not having ended well for Mr Pickles.
"Giving local residents a voice in the planning of their own communities continues to be an important tenet of the Government’s planning policy, but how evident this will be from the NPPF due to be published next Tuesday remains to be seen,” said Miles.
Pickles' decision to refuse an appeal by Fox Strategic Land, on the grounds of prematurity, was quashed earlier this month and he consented to judgment in the CALA Homes' appeal in Winchester.
The Secretary of State agreed that, excluding consideration of the sustainable distribution of housing, the appeal proposals would generally comply with the policies of the Development Plan apart from the design, countryside and agricultural land policies.
In contrast, Pickles recently allowed an appeal (99-page/826KB PDF) by Swindon Gateway Partnership for an 890 home development, rejecting the Council's argument that the development should be refused on the grounds of prematurity.
In his decision letter, the Secretary of State found that the development would be in conformity with the development plan, including the principle of development on the site.
"Developers will be forgiven for concluding that predicting the outcome of prematurity challenges on appeal or in the High Court is more of a dark art than a legal science," said Marcus Bate, a planning and development expert with Pinsent Masons.
"Three days separate the Secretary of State’s decisions on the Newmarket and Swindon appeals, yet the conclusions reached on prematurity are polar opposites, with the issue being determinative for the refusal of the former and being swept aside for the approval of the latter," he said.
