Applicant claiming local plan failed to make adequate provision for network of cycle routes – Inspector recommending various cycle routes be shown on proposals map – Council concluding local plan made adequate provision – Application for local plan policy to be quashed – Whether council failing to take into account policies and inspector’s recommendations – Application dismissed
In January 1993 the City of Bath Replacement Local Plan was placed on deposit. In November 1993, after objections to policy T36 of the plan, the council advertised an amended policy, TAA36, which provided “The city council will where opportunities exist support the identification and implementation of an appropriate network of cycle routes, of adequate safety, convenience and attractiveness, including safe routes to schools, shopping centres and within parks, and also take account of the needs and safety of cyclists in the design of new highway and traffic management schemes”. The applicant, the secretary of the Cyclist Touring Club, objected and appeared at the inquiry claiming that the local plan, and TAA36 in particular, did not make provision for a network of cycle routes and did not indicate the cycle routes in the proposals map. The inspector recommended that, since work on a city centre through-route, a northern bypass and the riverside “leisure route” should have proceeded sufficiently far by the close of the inquiry, the routes should be shown on the proposals map. In July 1995 the council produced a statement of decisions disagreeing with the inspector on the basis that work on establishing a network of cycle routes had not proceeded as fast as the inspector had envisaged and therefore there was still need for a policy which referred to the future. In September 1995 the council produced their proposal modifications showing that they did not propose any modifications in relation to T36. The applicant objected.
In December 1995 the council produced a statement of decisions concluding that work on establishing a network of cycle routes had still not proceeded sufficiently, and therefore T36 and the associated text went as far as possible to set out the council’s aspirations. In June 1996 the council adopted the local plan. The applicant applied under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for an order that policy T36 be quashed.
Held The application was dismissed.
Although the council had not adopted the inspector’s recommendation in relation to policy T36, there was nothing to suggest that the council had failed to take it into account, or that they had failed to take PPG 13 or policy TR 11 of the Avon County Structure Plan into account. It had not been necessary for the council to refer to the policies in each of their reasons because they were basic to the whole subject, and there was no reason to suppose that they had been overlooked at any time. The reason why the council had not complied with the inspector’s recommendation or PPG 13 or policy TR 11 was because work on the routes had not proceeded sufficiently for the purposes of a partial network. That reason could not be criticised and had been given clearly and had dealt thoroughly, conscientiously and fairly with the objection: Stirk v Bridgnorth District Council (1996) P&CR 439 and Miller v Wycombe District Council [1997] JPL 951, considered.
John Pugh-Smith (instructed by Bobbets Mackan, of Bristol) appeared for the applicant; Tobias Davey (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, London agents for the solicitor to Bath and North East Somerset Council) appeared for the respondents.
