Local plan — Adoption — Designation of land as urban landscape protection area — Departure from inspector’s recommendations — Whether council erring in failing to consider underlying purpose of ULPAs — Whether council failing to apply own criteria — Claim dismissed
The defendant council adopted a local plan in which they designated 20 acres of land as an urban landscape protection area (ULPA). The ULPA covered land owned by the claimant, together with three fields that the claimant had an option to purchase. In making the designation, the council had relied upon reasons that were similar to those they had given for their original inclusion of the ULPA in an earlier version of the plan, and had rejected the recommendations of the inspector who had been appointed to hold an inquiry into the objections. However, on the inspector’s recommendation, the council did alter their policy (policy L6) on the underlying purpose of ULPAs. Throughout the plan process, three criteria were applied for identifying an ULPA, namely that the land in question should be either a local vantage point, an amenity open space or a landmark in the open scene. These were included in the adopted plan. The inspector found that the claimant’s land met none of the criteria.
The claimant sought to quash the plan pursuant to section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It contended that although the council had not been obliged to accept the inspector’s recommendations, they had, in disagreeing with him: (i) failed to consider whether the claimant’s land served the newly defined underlying purpose of ULPA designation; and (ii) failed to apply their own designation criteria. The council submitted that the inspector’s recommendation was based solely upon his own value judgment that the land did not have the qualities necessary to meet the ULPA criteria, and that they were entitled to restate their own value judgment when disagreeing with him.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
1. The first ground of challenge had no substance. The crucial question was whether policy L6 went to the question of what type of development would not be permitted in an ULPA, once designated, or to whether land should be designated as an ULPA in the first place. It clearly determined the former question. The three criteria identified which sites should be designated as ULPAs. Moreover, the purpose of designation had not been substantially altered by the revised wording.
2. As to the second ground, the council had not failed to apply the three criteria. As a value judgment, they clearly regarded the land as an important gateway site and as a landmark in the open scene. The fact that their value judgment differed from that of the inspector did not take their decision outside their discretion. They had been under a duty to give serious consideration both to the inspector’s report and to the objections. They had done so, and had given sufficient reasons for their designation of the ULPA.
Christopher Katkowski QC (instructed by Lester Aldridge, of Southampton) appeared for the claimant; Andrew Tait QC (instructed by the solicitor to Torbay Council) appeared for the defendants.
Sally Dobson, barrister
