Alteration to county structure plan — Housing policy — Examination in public (EIP) — Recommendation of EIP panel not adopted by council — Application to quash alteration — Whether council entitled to disregard recommendation — High Court holding that council entitled to reject panel’s proposals on environmental grounds
The applicant had substantial landholding interests within the district of Scarborough, North Yorkshire, which was capable of residential development and included land which the applicant had promoted for residential development. He applied to the court for an order that the North Yorkshire County Structure Plan Alteration No 3 be quashed either wholly or in part, but specifically in relation to its housing policy H1. As a developer in the area the applicant was affected by the ceiling to residential development and claimed that his interests had been prejudiced.
Alterations 1 and 2 were approved by the second respondent, Secretary of State for the Environment, in 1987 and 1989 respectively. In 1991 the planning committee of the council considered a report on the need for further alteration and resolved that it should be selective and include a roll forward to 2006 of policy H1.
Following consultations the council decided on an increased requirement of 41,200 new dwellings countywide and 5,800 in the Scarborough district and incorporated those figures in their proposed changes in alteration 3. In July 1993 the proposed changes were placed on deposit and objectors were advised of provisional matters for discussion at the examination in public (“EIP”). The EIP panel concluded that provision should be made for between 45,000 to 46,000 new dwellings in the county in the period 1991-2006; and that provision be made for 6,400 new dwellings in the Scarborough district.
The council decided to reduce those numbers contrary to the recommendations of the panel and adopted their original figures. The applicant sought to quash alteration 3.
Held The application was dismissed.
1. If a challenge to the alteration of a structure plan was to succeed the interests of the applicant must have been substantially prejudiced by the failure to comply with the requirements in Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. A developer whose application for planning permission was refused might be substantially prejudiced where the planning considerations on which the decision was based were not explained sufficiently clearly to enable him reasonably to assess the prospects of succeeding in an application of some alternative form of development: see Save Britain’s Heritage v Secretary of State for the Environment [1991] 3 PLR 17.
3. The council were required to prepare a statement of decisions they had reached in the light of the report of the panel and of any recommendations contained in it, together with their reasons for those decisions: see regulation 16 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Regulations 1991.
4. The council were not giving reasons for departing from the recommendations of the panel but giving reasons for their decisions. In some instances the council might simply not be convinced by the reasoning of the panel.
5. In this case the court was satisfied that the weighing of environmental considerations could have left no sensible doubt as to why the council decided to reject the panel’s proposed alterations and to adhere to their previous figure. Therefore, there was no breach of the duty to give reasons.
6. Furthermore, the decision to adhere to the previous figure was not legally flawed or tainted by irrationality.
Jonathan Milner (instructed by Walker Morris, of Leeds) appeared for the applicant; Timothy Straker QC (instructed by the solicitor to North Yorkshire County Council) appeared for the council; the second respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment, did not appear and was not represented.
