Planning policy – Development – Local plan – Local development plan including criteria-based policy on gypsy sites – New policy requiring allocation of specific gypsy sites – Whether appropriate to quash local plan policy – Application dismissed
The defendant council adopted the North Somerset local plan (NSLP) produced under Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 prior to its amendment by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Prior to its adoption, the examination in public (EIP) panel recommended that a separate policy should be inserted into the plan requiring the identification of suitable locations for gypsy and traveller sites. The claimant, a Romany gypsy lived in the defendants’ area with his immediate family. He objected to policy H12 in the local plan, which dealt with sites for gypsies and travellers, because it was criteria-based and failed to implement the recommendation of the EIP panel. The claimant complained that, in adopting policy H12, the defendants had disregarded circular 1/94, which stated that criteria-based policies should be used only where location-based policies were not practicable.
By the time the local planning inspector reported on the local plan, circular 1/2006 had replaced circular 1/94. It set out a new planning process for gypsy sites, which required local planning authorities to allocate specific areas as gypsy sites. The inspector’s report noted that circular 01/2006 required the identification of specific gypsy sites and it was clear that he was aware of the shortcomings of policy H12. However, he did not recommend that the policy should be modified but instead suggested that the defendants should carry out, as soon as possible, an assessment of demand and produce a development plan document (DPD) allocating sites in accordance with need.
The defendants modified the local plan to refer to circular 01/2006 and carried out an assessment of need that led to the formulation of a draft regional special strategy. However, the claimant applied for an order quashing the local plan or policy H12 in any event, pursuant to section 287 of the 1990 Act.
Held: The application was dismissed.
The power of the court to quash a plan under section 287 was a blunt instrument and it was incumbent on claimants to consider the practical implications of obtaining relief. Even if in the instant case there was any force in the claimant’s arguments, as a matter of discretion the court would not grant the relief sought because of the adverse consequences to the gypsy community in general of the policy vacuum that would result if either the local plan or policy H12 were quashed.
There was no basis for quashing the local plan or policy H12. The inspector’s call for a DPD was a sensible solution to the problem arising out of the defendants’ delay in assessing the need for gypsy sites in the area: Butler v Bath and North East Somerset District Council [2003] EWCA Civ 1614, [2004] JPL 941 considered.
Timothy Jones (instructed by the Community Law Partnership, of Birmingham) appeared for the claimant; David Fletcher (instructed by the legal department of North Somerset District Council) appeared for the defendants.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
