Lichfield district council’s local plan, which releases two green belt sites for housing development, has been upheld by the High Court.
An aggrieved developer currently appealing against refusal of planning permission for its 750-home proposal elsewhere had hoped to boost its chances by having the strategy quashed.
However, Cranston J dismissed the challenge brought by IM Properties Development, the promoter of development on a site to the north-east of Lichfield, off Watery Lane, Curborough. IM’s appeal against refusal has been on hold pending the outcome of these proceedings.
The Lichfield District Local Plan: Strategy, made on 17 February 2015, alters the green belt boundaries to release two sites to the south of Lichfield: land at Deanslade Farm, Lichfield, promoted by Taylor Wimpey; and land at Cricket Lane, Lichfield, promoted by Persimmon pursuant to an option agreement with the landowners and St Modwen Developments.
IM argued that the planning inspector that conducted a public examination into the local plan had erred in failing to determine whether the sustainability appraisal carried out by the council complied with the relevant legal and procedural requirements, and that that sustainability appraisal and the process of consideration of alternatives had been legally flawed and unfair. IM said that the planning inspector had adopted the wrong approach when considering whether it was appropriate to alter the green belt boundaries and raised what the judge acknowledged was said to be a novel point, that the council had no power to adopt the local plan with the main modifications proposed in respect of the green belt sites, since this departed fundamentally from the spatial strategy it originally set out.
However, dismissing all grounds of challenge, the judge said that the inspector had correctly asked himself whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying development of the green belt sites, and that IM’s criticisms “fly in the face of how the planning inspector approached his task in considering alteration of the green belt boundaries”.
He said: “There is no doubt that he demonstrated that he was well aware of the relevant legal and planning policy tests. The green belt sites were consistent with the local plan’s urban and key centre strategy.”
Adding that the nature and extent of the modifications were a matter of judgment for the planning inspector, he added: “It is horn book law that the courts will not interfere with an exercise of planning judgment.”
IM Properties Development Ltd v Lichfield District Council Planning Court (Cranston J) 20 July 2015
Anthony Crean QC (instructed by Shoosmiths Solicitors) for the claimant
Giles Cannock (instructed by Bal Nahal, solicitor for Lichfield DC) for the defendant
Morag Ellis QC (instructed by Berwin Leighton Paisner) for the 1st interested party
Satnam Choongh and James Corbet Burcher (instructed by Squire Patton Boggs (UK) LLP) for the 2nd interested party
