Applicant owning land – Land located in area assigned in draft structure plan for development within or by way of rounding off built up area only – Applicant objecting to draft structure plan – Examination in public held – Panel confirming structure plan – Council adopting recommendation – Application challenging council’s decision dismissed
The applicant was a local house-building company which owned a vacant undeveloped site of approximately 2.5 ha adjoining Long Acres Drive, on the eastern edge of Whitworth, Rossendale, Lancashire. There was no green belt designation affecting the site. Policy 7 of the draft Lancashire structure plan listed settlements where consolidation and expansion appropriate to their size was to be provided for, whereas policy 8 listed settlements where only development within, or by way of rounding off, the built up area was to be provided for. Whitworth was listed within policy 8. The applicant was concerned that if Whitworth remained within policy 8 then its site was unlikely to be allowed planning permission for residential development and it objected to the draft structure plan. As a result the applicant was invited to attend the examination in public of the structure plan, which was held in May 1995. The two relevant issues were: (1) whether the designation and general extent of Lancashire’s green belt should remain unchanged; and (2) whether the structure plan policies provided an appropriate strategic framework for the future pattern of development.
At the hearing the contention was made that Whitworth should be included in policy 7 rather than policy 8. Nevertheless the examination in public panel recommended that Whitworth should be classified as a policy 8 settlement, and Lancashire County Council accepted the recommendation. In February 1997 the structure plan was adopted. The applicant applied under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 seeking an order to quash policies 7 and 8. It was contended that the council should not have grappled with the question of whether Whitworth should be within policy 7, and that the applicant was entitled to relief, in relation to the classification of Whitworth in the settlement policies, if it could establish any ground for challenge in accordance with the general principles summarised in Seddon Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1978) 42 P&CR 26. It was further contended that the council had failed to give reasons which were proper, intelligible and adequate and dealt with the principle controversial issues as indicated in Save Britain’s Heritage v Secretary of State for the Environment [1991] 3 PLR 17.
Held The application was dismissed.
The panel’s determination set out a fair and accurate explanation of the issues and identified the council’s concern that a higher categorisation might provoke further conflict with development proposals and the green belt. The reasons for the recommendation, namely concerns of a merger with Rochdale as a result of incursion into the green belt at an unspecified location and that there was scope for rounding off that would be held to sustain the local community, fairly reflected a conclusion which could reasonably be reached on the material before the examination in public, and of which the applicant was aware and upon which it had opportunity to make submission. Therefore there had not been a breach of the panel’s duty to act fairly. Accordingly, the council’s acceptance of the recommendation and their reasoning was also fair and reasonable.
David Holgate QC (instructed by Halliwell Landau, of Manchester) appeared for the appellant; Frances Patterson (instructed by the solicitor to Lancashire County Council) appeared for the respondent authority; the second respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment, did not appear and was not represented.
