Respondent council adopting unitary development plan – Pre-inquiry modification made to proposals map affecting applicants’ land – Applicants seeking to quash plan – Whether respondents acting unreasonably in failing to notify applicants of modification and refusing to hold further inquiry – Application dismissed
In July 1998 the respondent council adopted the Doncaster Unitary Development Plan (the UDP). The route for a Trans-Pennine trail was shown in the proposals map of the UDP as following in part the line of a disused mineral railway (the railway route). That route crossed the applicants’ land. Initially, a different route had appeared on the pre-deposit consultation draft version of the proposals map, which did not affect the applicants’ land. The applicants made no objection either at that stage nor at the deposit draft stage. Following objections to the deposit draft, however, the respondent’s planning and design services committee proposed the railway route as a pre-inquiry modification to the proposals map. This route was adopted by the respondents, and an advertisement was placed in the local press publicising the modification.
A public inquiry followed, at the close of which the applicants became aware of the modification and made representations. The inspector recommended adoption of the railway route, and the applicants requested that a further public inquiry be held. The respondents contended that the procedures had been complied with, and resolved that a further inquiry was unnecessary. The applicants applied to quash the UDP in so far as it related to their land pursuant to section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The principal issues were whether the respondents had acted unreasonably in: (1) failing to notify the applicants that the proposed modification took the route across their land; and (2) failing to consider whether it was unfair to the applicants to adopt the UDP without a further inquiry.
Held: The application was dismissed.
1. There was no statutory requirement that the respondents should notify affected landowners either at the pre-deposit consultation stage or at the deposit stage. It was therefore unreasonable to require the respondents to notify the applicants of the non-statutory, pre-inquiry modification to the map. The respondents had not acted unreasonably in advertising the proposed modification in accordance with the advice in PPG 12 Annex A para 20.
2. Consideration had been given to the applicants’ wider interests, such as the delay a further inquiry would incur. The respondents had adequately addressed the issue of whether there should be a further inquiry, and had given their reasons, which could not be said to be Wednesbury unreasonable.
Mary Macpherson (instructed by Robert Muckle, of Newcastle upon Tyne) appeared for the applicants; Simon Pickles and Richard Harwood (instructed by the solicitor to Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council) appeared for the respondents.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister