Factual and Procedural Background
The Defendant, a Borough Council, adopted a Local Plan which included housing allocations. The Plaintiff, owner of land known as "Homelands Farm" near Bishops Cleeve, Gloucestershire, sought residential development on this land, which was not allocated for housing in the Plan. The Local Plan underwent a lengthy process involving draft publications in 1998 and 2001, public inquiries in 2002-2003, and an Inspector's report recommending deletion of certain housing sites, including two sites referred to as the "Shurdington site" and "Stoke Orchard," and suggested that Homelands Farm be included in a further assessment of potential allocations.
The Defendant conducted a comparative assessment of potential housing sites and proposed modifications to the Plan, including deleting the Shurdington site and Stoke Orchard but not allocating Homelands Farm for housing, citing sustainability and Green Belt considerations. The Plaintiff objected to these modifications, requesting a further public inquiry and inclusion of Homelands Farm in the housing allocations.
The Defendant responded to objections, including those from multiple parties, and eventually adopted the Plan in April 2006, including the Shurdington site and another site (M & G Sports Ground) as phased housing allocations with restrictions pending a comprehensive Green Belt review and Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) process. The Plaintiff challenged the inclusion of these sites and the exclusion of Homelands Farm through applications under Section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and judicial review proceedings.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Defendant failed to have regard to relevant national planning policy in including the Shurdington site and M & G Sports Ground site within the housing allocations of the Local Plan.
- Whether the Defendant provided adequate reasons for rejecting the Inspector's recommendations regarding the Shurdington site.
- Whether the Defendant failed to provide proper, adequate, and intelligible reasons for excluding Homelands Farm from the housing allocations.
- Whether the Defendant lawfully refused the Plaintiff's request for a second public inquiry into the Plan modifications.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The inclusion of the Shurdington site and M & G Sports Ground site was unlawful because there was no real possibility these sites could be developed within the Plan period (2007-2011), contrary to national policy requiring developable sites.
- The Defendant failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the Inspector's recommendation to exclude the Shurdington site.
- The Defendant failed to give proper reasons for excluding Homelands Farm, and reliance on the abandoned Structure Plan Third Review panel report was improper.
- The Defendant acted unlawfully in refusing the request for a further public inquiry on the Plan modifications.
Defendant's Arguments
- The Defendant complied with relevant policy, including PPG3 and draft PPS3, and undertook a full comparative assessment of sites.
- The inclusion of the Shurdington and M & G Sports Ground sites, phased for 2007-2011, was a lawful exercise of planning judgment and consistent with a "plan, monitor, manage" approach.
- The Defendant gave adequate, intelligible reasons for departing from the Inspector's recommendations on the Shurdington site, based on planning judgment and emerging policy guidance.
- The reasons for excluding Homelands Farm were proper and included sustainability concerns and alignment with regional policy focused on Principal Urban Areas.
- The refusal to hold a second public inquiry was reasonable, having regard to relevant considerations including prior independent scrutiny, PPG12 guidance, and fairness to all parties.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Save Britain's Heritage v Number One Poultry Limited [1991] 1 WLR 153 |
Requirement that reasons for planning decisions be proper, intelligible, and adequate to allow affected parties to understand the decision and assess prospects of alternative applications. |
The court applied this principle to evaluate whether the Defendant had given adequate reasons for rejecting objections to the housing allocations, finding failure to provide adequate reasons in relation to the inclusion of the Shurdington and M & G Sports Ground sites. |
| Miller and Others v Wycombe District Council (1997) JPL 951 |
Local planning authorities must consider and give reasons for decisions departing from an Inspector's report on a local plan. |
The court held that the Defendant had adequately addressed the Inspector's principal criticisms regarding the Shurdington site, thus no failure to give reasons was found on this ground. |
| Drexfine Holdings Limited v The Cherwell District Council (1998) JPL 361 |
Factors relevant to deciding whether a further public inquiry should be held, including prior independent scrutiny, policy guidance, practical implications, delay, and fairness. |
The court found the Defendant had properly considered these factors in refusing the Plaintiff's request for a second inquiry, and permission for judicial review on this ground was refused. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by summarizing the factual background and policy context, including the Inspector's report and subsequent modifications to the Local Plan. It examined the Plaintiff's challenge to the inclusion of the Shurdington and M & G Sports Ground sites, focusing on national planning policy, particularly PPG3 and draft PPS3, which require allocated sites to be developable within the plan period.
The court recognized that the Defendant exercised planning judgment in phasing these sites for development between 2007 and 2011 and in linking development to processes such as the Green Belt review and RSS adoption. However, it found that by the time of adoption, there was no evidence that these sites could realistically be developed within the plan period.
The Defendant's failure to properly address the Plaintiff's objections concerning the implementability of these sites and the absence of adequate reasons for maintaining them in the Plan rendered the decision unreasonable and irrational in the Wednesbury sense. This constituted a failure to have regard to clear national policy and a failure to provide adequate reasons, substantially prejudicing the Plaintiff's interests.
Regarding the Shurdington site, the court found that the Defendant had adequately considered and given reasons for departing from the Inspector's recommendation, thus no failure to give reasons arose on that point.
On the exclusion of Homelands Farm, the court concluded that the Defendant had provided proper, intelligible, and adequate reasons grounded in sustainability concerns and regional policy, including the focus on Principal Urban Areas. The court rejected the Plaintiff's argument that reliance on the abandoned Structure Plan Third Review panel report was improper, finding no material prejudice or illegality.
Finally, the court considered the Defendant's refusal to hold a further public inquiry. It found that the Defendant had properly balanced relevant considerations, including prior independent scrutiny, policy guidance, delay, and fairness, and had acted reasonably. Permission for judicial review on this ground was refused.
Holding and Implications
The court made the following holdings:
- Quashing Order Granted: The court quashed those parts of the Local Plan including the Shurdington site and the M & G Sports Ground site as housing allocations, together with any consequential parts of the Plan.
- Judicial Review Claim Dismissed: The claim for judicial review was dismissed in all other respects, including challenges relating to the exclusion of Homelands Farm and the refusal to hold a further public inquiry.
The direct effect of this decision is to remove the two contested sites from the Local Plan's housing allocations, requiring the Defendant to reconsider its housing strategy in those respects. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the decision reinforced established principles regarding the adequacy of reasons, the exercise of planning judgment, and compliance with national planning policy.