Claimant objecting to deposit draft local plan – Claimant alleging insufficient allocation of land for expansion of dock – Inquiry held – Inspector finding shortfall in local plan and recommending it be modified by allocating 175 ha for development – Defendant authority rejecting inspector’s recommendation and adopting local plan – Claimant seeking to quash decision – Whether defendants’ decision perverse – Whether approach inconsistent – Claim dismissed
The claimant, First Corporate Shipping Ltd, owned and operated the Port of Bristol, including the Royal Portbury Dock (the dock). The defendants were the local planning authority for the area. The draft local plan was placed on deposit by the then District Council. The claimant objected to the draft local plan on the ground that insufficient land had been allocated to accommodate the expansion of the dock. A local inquiry was held.
In his report, the inspector referred to policy E.14 of the structure plan, which stated that “land amounting to 210 hectares… adjoining Portbury Dock is proposed for general industry, storage or distribution…” However, the inspector disregarded the wording in the policy that restricted it to land lying entirely within the “limit of deviation of works”, as specified in the Bristol Corporation (West Docks) Act 1971.The inspector concluded that there was a 50ha shortfall in the local plan and recommended that “the Local Plan be modified to allocate about 175 hectares adjoining the Dock for development between 1995 and 2001 for industry, distribution, or storage in accordance with Structure Plan Policy E.14”.
In their first statement of reasons, the defendants accepted that there was an outstanding and unsatisfied strategic need, which might be met by allocation of land outside the limit of deviation. However, in their final statement of reasons, the defendants found that the inspector’s conclusion that there was a shortfall of 50ha was wrong and refused to accept his recommendation. The statement recommended that there be no change and in June 2000, the defendants resolved to adopt the local plan.
The claimant sought an order, pursuant to section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, that various parts of the local plan be quashed in so far as they related to the dock. Its basis was that, in deciding not to accept the inspector’s recommendation, the defendants exceeded their powers under Part II of the 1990 Act and/or acted in breach of the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) (England) Regulations 1999. The defendants submitted that the deposit draft local plan satisfied the strategic requirement of policy E.14 of the structure plan. The claimant submitted, inter alia, that the defendants’ decision was irrational, perverse, and inconsistent in its approach.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
The defendants’ decision could not be said to be irrational or perverse. The inspector had addressed the issue on an undisputed but erroneous basis, namely, that the structure plan’s strategic requirement of 210ha was not limited to land that was situated entirely within the limit of deviation. Therefore, the essential foundation for his recommendation was shown not to exist. Further, it was necessary to look at the defendants’ decision-making process as a whole and not look at its individual stages in isolation. Although the defendants did refer to the possibility of development proposals beyond the limit of deviation in their first statement of reasons, the reasons given in that first statement had to be read subject to the reasons given in the final statement. The defendants’ final statement made clear their reasons for stating that there was no shortfall and that the deposit plan satisfied the strategic requirement of policy E.14. There was no inconsistency in their approach.
Neil King QC and Reuben Taylor (instructed by Tite & Lewis) appeared for the claimant; David Holgate QC (instructed by the solicitor to North Somerset Council) appeared for the defendants.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
