Local plan – Green space designation – Owners of six-acre site objecting – Inquiry – Inspector recommending removal of designation from site – Council not accepting recommendation – Owners applying to quash decision on ground that council had failed to give proper reasons – Owners claiming to be substantially prejudiced by alleged failure of council to comply statutory regulations – Owner’s application succeeding – Council’s appeal dismissed
The respondents owned the objection site, six acres of land off Harvest Hill, Bourne End. The deposit draft of the local plan included application of a new green space policy, policy L3, to the Harvest Hill area. The respondents objected to the application of policy L3 to their land and an inquiry was held. The local plan inspector recommended that the green space designation under policy L3 be removed from the respondents land. The council rejected the inspector’s recommendation.The respondents objected to the council’s proposal not to accept the inspector’s recommendations but on January 5 1995 the council’s planning and development committee resolved not to modify policy L3 in respect of the objection site. On July 10 1995 the council adopted the local plan.
The respondents applied pursuant to section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for an order that policy L3, so far as it related to the land off Harvest Hill, be quashed. The judge quashed the plan on the ground that the council had not given adequate reasons for their decision and the council appealed.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
Regulation 16(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Regulations 1991 required the council, on considering the report of the local plan inspector, to prepare a statement of ‘the decisions they have reached in the light of the report and the reasons for those decisions’. Section 287(2)(b) of the 1990 Act provided that on an application to the court under the section, a person aggrieved had to show that the plan was outside the powers conferred by Part II of the Act or that the ‘ interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by the failure to comply . . .’. In order to succeed there had to be both substantial prejudice to the applicant and a flaw in the decision-making process: see Save Britain’s Heritage v Secretary of State for the Environment [1991] 3 PLR 17 per Lord Bridge and Smith v East Elloe Rural District Council [1956] AC 736 at p673 per Lord Radcliffe. Green space designation, precluding any residential development on the land, substantially prejudiced the landowners. The inspector had found that the issue turned on how visible the objection site was from a distance and concluded that the extent to which the site could be seen from a distance was insignificant. The council had chosen to differ from the inspector, but it was incumbent upon the council to demonstrate that minds had been applied to the inspector’s reports. Instead the council had ignored the inspector’s findings and instead recited a series of assertions, including one which conflicted with a concession made by the council at the inquiry, as to why it was necessary to apply policy L3.
John Hobson ( instructed by the solicitor to Wycombe District Council) appeared for the appellants;
Peter Village (instructed by Blandy & Blandy, of Reading) appeared for the respondents.
