Leeds City Council didn’t act unlawfully when it made its own changes to a neighbourhood plan prior to putting it to a referendum, the Court of Appeal ruled this week.
The case concerns a neighborhood plan prepared for the Yorkshire village of Linton in 2014 and 2015, and relates to a area of farmland with the plan area known as “The Ridge”.
Under the Town and Country Planning act, neighbourhood plans must be checked by an examiner prior to being put to a referendum, to confirm they meet their obligations under the act.
In this case, according to the judgment, the examiner approved the plan, subject to a few modifications. One of the modifications was a direction to delete the part of the policy that specifically related to development on The Ridge.
Leeds City Council made the modifications, but also added text explaining why the Parish Council considered The Ridge to be unsuitable for development.
The plan was then put to a referendum in December 2015, but due to legal action, it hasn’t yet been implemented.
The challenge was brought by Kebbell Developments Ltd, a property development country that has an interest in the access to The Ridge, and seeks to develop it.
Kebbell has already applied for outline planning permission for a development of 26 dwellings on the site, and is engaged in a legal challenge with the council over it.
In this case, their lawyers contend that the council acted outside of its powers when departing from the examiner’s recommendations, didn’t give sufficient reasons for its modification, and should have consulted on the modifications it made.
However, the Court of Appeal disagreed.
“One must not adopt too narrow an understanding of the local planning authority’s statutory power to make modifications,” appeal court judge Lord Justice Lindblom Sid in the ruling.
“The question of whether such a modification is necessary, and if so, what form it should take, requires the exercise of planing judgment”.
Such things are for the local planning authority to resolve “subject to review by the court in accordance with the principles of public law,” Lindblom said.
In relation to the suggestion that the council should have run a consult on “there can be no argument based on the general requirements of ‘procedural unfairness’” Lindblom said.
“No breach of those requirements occurred. Nor can it be said that there was any “legitimate expectation” to be consulted. Non has been shown,” he said.
Kebbell Developments Ltd v Leeds City Council; Collingham with Linton Parish Council (interested party).
Court of Appeal (Underhill LJ, Lindblom LJ, Singh LJ) 14 March 2018
