Town and country planning – Development plan – Neighbourhood development plan – Defendant local authority deciding to allowing neighbourhood development plan (NDP) allocating three sites for residential development – Claimant developer seeking judicial review of decision – Whether legislation permitting allocation of sites for particular development in NDPs – Whether document including site allocation constituting “local development document” – Application dismissed
The claimant was a house-building company which had a commercial interest in land situated to the north-west of Uppingham. The defendants were the local planning authority for area. The defendants’ core strategy, a development plan document within the meaning of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, provided for development in land to the west and north-west of Uppingham. The location and details of future housing development was to be determined through the site allocations and policies development plan document which required the approval of a planning inspector. The defendants’ submission document stated that no sites were allocated for development in that document since a separate neighbourhood plan for Uppingham was being prepared by the interested party town council that would cover the town and parts of the surrounding area and be subject to separate consultation, examination and referendum under the neighbourhood planning process. The defendants decided to allow the neighbourhood development plan (NDP) to proceed to a neighbourhood planning referendum.
The claimant challenged the legality of that decision on the basis that, of the three sites selected for residential development to the west of the town, none included the site in which the claimant had an interest. Accordingly the claimant applied for judicial review of the decision on the ground, among other things, that the legislation, particularly section 17(7)(za) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and regulation 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012( SI 2012/767) did not permit allocation of sites for particular development in NDPs.
Section 17(7) of the 2004 Act, as inserted, provided: “Regulations under this section may prescribe — (za) which descriptions of documents are, or if prepared are, to be prepared as local development documents …”.
Regulation 5 of the 2012 Regulations provided: “”(1) For the purposes of section 17(7)(za) of the Act the documents which are to be prepared as local development documents are — (a) any document prepared by a local planning authority individually or in cooperation with one or more other local planning authorities, which contains statements regarding one or more of the following — (i) the development and use of land which the local planning authority wish to encourage during any specified period; (ii) the allocation of sites for a particular type of development or use; (iii) any environmental, social, design and economic objectives which are relevant to the attainment of the development and use of land mentioned in paragraph (i); and (iv) development management and site allocation policies, which are intended to guide the determination of applications for planning permission; (b) where a document mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) contains policies applying to sites or areas by reference to an Ordnance Survey map, any map which accompanies that document and which shows how the adopted policies map would be amended by the document, if it were adopted. (2) For the purposes of section 17(7)(za) of the Act the documents which, if prepared, are to be prepared as local development documents are— (a) any document which— (i) relates only to part of the area of the local planning authority; (ii) identifies that area as an area of significant change or special conservation; and (iii) contains the local planning authority’s policies in relation to the area; and (b) any other document which includes a site allocation policy.”
Held: The application was dismissed.
Section 17(7)(za) of the 2004 Act dealt with documents which had to be prepared and those which could be prepared as local development documents. There was no other sensible construction. Regulation 5(1) of the 2012 Regulations dealt with documents which needed to be prepared as local development documents. Those included in regulation 5(a)(ii) allocation of sites for a particular type of development or use. There was an obligation to deal with strategic considerations in local development documents and that was what regulation 5(1)(a)(ii) was concerned with. It did not mean that precise sites within the scope of the required policy approach needed to be identified so that local communities had no say in that. There was no reason to construe regulation 5(2)(b) in wider terms than regulation 5(1)(a)(ii). The language was not the same, but a “site allocation policy” was wider than an identification of a particular site within a policy. The regulation was badly drafted, but it would be surprising, indeed contrary to what a neighbourhood plan was supposed to achieve, if the allocation of precise sites were not able to be dealt with in a neighbourhood plan.
Charles Banner and Heather Sargent (instructed by Marrons Shakespeares) appeared for the claimant; Martin Carter (instructed by Peterborough City Council) appeared for the defendants.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
Read the transcript of R (on the application of Larkfleet Homes Ltd) v Rutland County Council
