Applicant objecting to local planning authority’s policy contained in deposit plan – Local planning authority not adopting inspector’s recommendations – Unitary development plan produced – Applicant seeking to quash policy contained in unitary development plan – Whether local planning authority complying with their duty under regulation 16(1) of Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Regulations 1991 – Application dismissed
The first respondents, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (the council), produced a unitary development plan (UDP), which set out the planning policies they intended to apply within the area over which they exercised control as the local planning authority. The council’s proposals for the Stockport UDP were placed on deposit for public inspection. Policy UL 1.3 (the policy) of the deposit plan set out the council’s proposals with regard to their requirements for the provision of recreation and amenity open space within new residential development. The applicant, the House Builders Federation Ltd (HBF), objected to the policy and the objection was heard and considered by the inspector at a public inquiry held during 1995. In his report, the inspector concluded that the policy went further than was reasonable, and required modification with regard to its application to small residential schemes.
In 1997 a meeting took place between the officers of the council and representatives of the Department of the Environment, government office for the North West (GONW) to discuss the policy in the light of the inspector’s report. As a result of the meeting, the council drafted a report on the inspector’s recommendations and included their proposed modifications to the policy. Subsequent detailed discussions between the council and GNOW resulted in a report dated August 7 1997, incorporating all the changes agreed with GONW. The inspector’s recommendations on the were duly considered at a meeting of the council’s technical services committee on August 7 1997. The Director of Environment and Economic Development (DEEP) presented a report to that meeting, which included the modifications it proposed should be made to the policy in light of the inspector’s report. The committee considered and approved the DEEP report and the proposed modifications to the policy. On September 19 1997 notice of the proposed modifications was published, which included the council’s response to the inspector’s report. Despite objections by the HBF, the council adopted the UDP and gave notification of such on February 20 1998. The HBF applied for an order that the policy of the UDP be quashed pursuant to s 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It was submitted that, following a UDP inquiry, where the local planning authority disagree with and reject the conclusions and recommendations of the inspector, they must demonstrate, first, that they have dealt with the substantial points raised by the inspector and, second, that they have applied their mind “thoroughly, conscientiously and fairly” to the inspector’s report.
Held The application was dismissed.
The duty imposed on a local planning authority by regulation 16(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Regulations 1991 was clearly expressed to be a duty to give reasons for their decisions, and such reasons may well include an explanation as to why a particular recommendation of the inspector has been rejected. However, regulation 16(1) did not impose a specific duty to give such an explanation in every case. It was clear from the council’s dealings with GONW, that the council had applied their mind fairly to the inspector’s report and his recommendations, and, accordingly, there was no proper basis for a conclusion that the council had failed to deal with the substantial points raised by the inspector. Further, having had regard to the council’s discussions with and concessions to GONW, it was not essential that the modified policy contained an expressly worded “test of necessity” to demonstrate regard had been had to Circular 1/97.
Douglas Edwards (instructed by Halliwell Landau, of Manchester) appeared for the applicant; Eric Owen (instructed by the solicitor to Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council) appeared for the first respondents; the second respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
