Applicants objecting to designation of site as green belt in draft unitary development plan – Respondents proposing modification designating site as open space area – Applicants objecting – Respondents deciding not to hold further inquiry and adopting UDP – Whether part of UDP relating to site should be quashed – Application allowed
The applicants owned most of a parcel of land (the site) that was included in the designated green belt in the draft Doncaster unitary development plan (UDP). They sought to have the site deleted from the green belt notation and allocated for employment purposes or, alternatively, as safeguard land for future development. Following an inquiry, the inspector concluded that the site should not be designated as green belt and recommended that the UDP be modified. He further recommended that there be reconsideration of the suitability of the site for housing development.
The council published proposed modifications deleting the site from the green belt notation and allocating it instead as an open space policy area under Policy RL1. The applicants objected to that modification on the grounds that: (i) the proposal for allocation as open space was an entirely new issue that had not been dealt with at the inquiry, so that the applicants had not had an opportunity to discuss or contest it; and (ii) the proposed modification was not supported by adequate reasons. The claimants’ request for a further inquiry was refused by the council, who considered their objections, concluded that no further modifications should be proposed, and adopted the UDP showing the site as an open space area.
The applicants sought an order under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that Policy RL1 of the UDP be quashed, in so far as it related to the site, and that the UDP be amended accordingly. They raised four main issues: (i) whether the council were right to reject the applicants’ objection to the modification as “not duly made”; (ii) whether the inspector’s recommendation that the site be considered for allocation for housing development was considered fairly and reasonably; (iii) whether the applicants’ objection to the proposed modification allocating the site as an open space area had been fairly or reasonably considered, and whether adequate reasons had been given for the decision to modify; and (iv) whether the council erred in declining to hold a second public inquiry.
Held: The application was allowed.
The council had failed to take into account a highly material consideration, namely that the proposed modification of the site as an open space area had not been considered either at the deposit or the inquiry stage. Second, they had failed to give adequate, or any, reasons for the proposed allocation of the site as open space at a stage that would have enabled the applicants to deal properly with that proposal when objecting to it. As a result, the council’s decision to adopt the proposed modification and not to hold a second inquiry was irrational, unreasonable and unlawful.
Martin Carter (instructed by Bridge Sanderson Munro, of Doncaster) appeared for the applicants; Simon Pickles and Richard Harwood (instructed by Wilbraham & Co, of Leeds) appeared for the respondents.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister