Local plan — Unallocated land — Council deciding to alter local plan and place land in green belt — Owners objecting to designation — Inspector recommending that land should not be taken into green belt — Council refusing to accept recommendation — Further inquiry — Second inspector failing to make proper findings on material issues — Whether decision should be quashed — Decision to alter local plan quashed — Judgment for the owners
The plaintiffs owned 11 acres of undeveloped land on adjoining sites at Long Ashton. This land was zoned as white land (unallocated because it was uncertain whether in due course it should be developed or taken into the green belt) in the Somerset County Council Development Plan approved by the Minister of Housing and Local Government on July 6 1966. In 1986 it was proposed to alter the local plan to include the plaintiffs’ land in the green belt, but the plaintiffs objected. In September 1977 an inspector held a pulic inquiry and concluded that the plaintiffs’ sites should not be included in the green belt, but should retain their status as unallocated land. The council did not accept that recommendation and decided not to modify their original proposal. The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court, which quashed the decision to alter the local plan in so far as it affected the plaintiffs’ land. The planning committee set out more substantial reasoned grounds why the inspector’s recommendation should be rejected. The council resolved to stand by their decision. The plaintiffs again objected and after an inquiry a different inspector concluded that the council had provided all the evidence required to justify the inclusion of the land in the green belt. However, he did not direct himself to the fact that there must be exceptional reasons to justify the change of status of land placed outside the green belt on an earlier development plan, concentrating instead on the evidence of other land available for development in the area. The council resolved to adopt the alteration as planned. The plaintiffs appealed.
Held Judgment for the plaintiffs.
1. Neither the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 nor the Town and Country Planning (Structure and Local Plan) Regulations 1982 specifically required the inspector to give reasons for his decision, but from PPG2 it was clear that in order to fulfill his role properly under the statutory scheme, the inspector had to make findings on disputed issues which were material to the result.
2. The duty of a council pursuant to section 36 of the 1990 Act was to have regard to government policy. An authority had to have regard to Circular 14/84 and PPG2, but provided they did so, they were entitled to depart from it so long as they gave adequate reasons for doing so: see Carpets of Worth Ltd v Wyre Forest District Council (1991) 62 P&CR 334.
3. The difficulty in the present case was that the inspector did not address the issue at all and so the plaintiffs had justified grounds for complaint. Under the statutory scheme prescribed by Parliament they were entitled to have their objections properly analysed by an independent inspector whose recommendations should have been based on findings on each material issue debated before him.
4. In those circumstances a planning authority was at risk if they decided to proceed to adopt a plan without seeking the advice of the Secretary of State as to the course they should follow. The interests of both plaintiffs had been substantially prejudiced by the failure to comply with the statutory requirements and the alteration to the local plan should be quashed in so far as it affected the plaintiffs’ land.
Charles George QC (instructed by the solicitor to Laing Homes Ltd) appeared for Laing Homes Ltd; Robin Barratt QC and Philip Petchey (instructed by Wansbroughs Willey Hargrave, of Bristol) appeared for Grosvenor Developments; Lionel Read QC (instructed by the solicitor to Avon County Council) appeared for the council.
