Designation of applicant’s land as a strategic gap in structure plan – Local plan inquiry – Applicant objecting on grounds that its land not performing functions prescribed by policy of structure plan – Inspector recommending land be retained as strategic gap – Respondents adopting inspector’s recommendation – Application allowed
The applicant owned the majority of some 100 hectares of land at Ifield Court Farm (the site), situated within the area of the respondents, Horsham District Council. The site had been designated as a strategic gap in previous local plans. The merits of inclusion of the applicant’s land, prior to the present case, had not been the subject of independent assessment. In 1993 the West Sussex structure plan prescribed specific objectives, which differed from previous structure plans, for the designation of strategic gaps, and sought to identify a long-term constraint. At the local plan inquiry, the applicant contended that its land did not perform the specific functions prescribed by policy C5 of the 1993 structure plan. The inspector recommended that the applicant’s land be retained as a strategic gap. The respondents subsequently adopted the inspector’s recommendation. The applicant applied, pursuant to section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to quash the respondents’ decision on the ground that the respondents failed to understand and apply policy C5 of the structure plan.
Held The application was allowed.
The 1993 structure plan policy required that the land necessary for preventing coalescence and retaining separate identity or amenity of settlements was identified so it could be excluded from future consideration for development. It was correct to say that the boundaries in future local plans should not be altered without sound justification, but, for precisely that reason, it was the inclusion of land within the boundaries that did require justification for the purposes of the current local plan. In that respect, the inspector misunderstood policy C5. The inspector’s requirement of “very strong justification” for omission of land identified in the local plans as part of a strategic gap from the boundaries in the current plan was setting an irrelevant test. If land was necessary to meet the objects of the policy, there was no justification to permit its exclusion. If it was not necessary, then, likewise, there was no justification for its inclusion. The inspector had referred to the value of the applicant’s land and avoided the real question of the need to keep the land free from development in order to secure the policy objectives. The inspector had misdirected himself and, therefore, the respondents had not properly applied themselves to the test.
Christopher Lockhart-Mummery QC (instructed by DJ Freeman) appeared for the applicant; Rhodri Price Lewis (instructed by the solicitor to Horsham District Council) appeared for the respondents.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister