Applicant objecting to draft unitary development plan identifying site as Green Belt – Inspector recommending that site removed from Green Belt – Council rejecting inspector’s recommendations and adopting plan – Applicant seeking to quash that part of the plan – Whether council failing to give adequate reasons for departing from inspector’s recommendations – Application allowed
In 1994 the first respondents (the council) published a deposit draft unitary development plan (UDP), in which a site was identified as an area of high landscape value (AHLV) and Green Belt. The applicant had an interest in the site and made objections to the draft plan, contending that the AHLV notation should be deleted and the site excluded from the Green Belt and allocated either for housing or as provisional open land. A public inquiry was held.
In August 1997, the council received the inspector’s report, in which he concluded, inter alia, that the site did not materially contribute to the purposes of Green Belt. The inspector recommended that the plan be modified as contended for by the applicant. On the advice of their officers, the council rejected the inspector’s recommendations and identified the site as Green Belt in the UDP. The applicant’s request for a further inquiry was refused by the council.
The applicant sought an order to quash the adoption of the UDP, in so far as it related to the site, under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on the grounds that the council had: (i) failed to give adequate reasons for their departure from the inspector’s recommendations; and (ii) taken immaterial considerations into account when considering the provisional open land recommendation for the site.
Held: The application was allowed.
The council had failed to give adequate reasons as to why they felt unable to agree with the inspector’s recommendations. Furthermore, they erred in their approach by taking into account the fact that the site had previously been designated as Green Belt in an earlier development plan. That was immaterial as to how the site was to be designated in the present UDP. In proceeding in the way that they did on the selection of provisional open land sites, the council set up a false dichotomy, in that they thought they had to choose between the site, which was in the statutory Green Belt, and others that were not. The plan was quashed in so far as it designated the site as Green Belt.
Frances Patterson QC and Anthony Crean (instructed by Walker Morris, of Leeds) appeared for the applicant; John Barrett (instructed by the solicitor to Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council) appeared for the first respondents; the second respondent did not appear and was not represented.
