Waste local plan — Consultation — Public inquiry — Defendants rejecting certain recommendations of inspector at inquiry — Refusal to hold second inquiry to deal with objections — Whether defendants obliged to hold second inquiry — Whether entitled to reject recommendations — Claim dismissed
The defendant councils adopted a waste local plan that identified various potential locations for waste-management facilities, including two sites that were considered to be suitable for waste incineration. One of the incineration sites was in Newhaven, within half a mile of the claimant’s home. The adopted plan was reached pursuant to the preparation of two successive drafts, which were amended following detailed examination of responses to consultations, and a public inquiry before an inspector, under section 40(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, at which objections were considered. The defendants had accepted 231 of the 299 recommendations in the inspector’s report and rejected the remainder, giving their reasons. They had then consulted further on their final proposals, receiving and rejecting a large number of objections. They decided against holding a further inquiry to deal with the objections. They took the view that the objectors had raised no new issues and that, in any event, the issues raised by the inspector, together with changes in national and regional policy, would have to be addressed in the waste framework document (WDF) that they were obliged to prepare following the enactment of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The final plan was then submitted to, and approved by, the secretary of state.
The claimant brought proceedings, under section 287 of the 1990 Act, to quash the plan. She asserted that the defendants should have held a further inquiry into the objections raised to their rejection of recommendations and should have referred to the considerations listed in Drexfine Holdings Ltd v Cherwell District Council [1998] JPL 361 as being relevant to the decision as to whether to hold a second inquiry. She further contended that the defendants had acted unlawfully in rejecting the inspector’s recommendations on a number of specific matters, namely, inter alia, for the addition of other sites to those considered appropriate for waste disposal.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
(1) The defendants had appreciated the need to consider whether the objections to their decision to modify the plan, in the light of the inspector’s recommendations, required them to hold a further inquiry. Since the issues would, in any event, be assessed in connection with the WDF, the holding of a further inquiry would have incurred unnecessary expense and would have led to delay. The defendants’ decision not to hold an inquiry was consistent with government guidance. There had been no need to refer to the Drexfine considerations in the instant case. Moreover, it was not necessary to refer to them specifically, provided that the court could be satisfied that the authority in question had acted in accordance with the law and had had regard to the material considerations. When the defendants’ reasons for refusing a second inquiry were viewed in the light of the circumstances of the case, their decision was not only justifiable but was also the only sensible course to adopt.
(2) The defendants had committed no error of law in rejecting the inspector’s recommendations on the matters complained of by the claimant. They had reached their decision on the recommendations in the wake of a substantial consultation exercise and had been entitled to reject the additional sites on the ground that they had not been put into consultation or properly assessed and that that inclusion in the plan would have necessitated a further inquiry.
Richard Harwood (instructed by EarthRights, of Takeley) appeared for the claimant; Timothy Straker QC and Lisa Busch (instructed by the legal department of East Sussex County Council) appeared for the defendants.
Sally Dobson, barrister
