Structure plan providing for housing allocation — Draft alterations replacing that policy — Local plan adding qualification to housing provision to reflect uncertainty over strategic justification for housing allocation — Whether local plan in general conformity with structure plan — Claim allowed in part
The claimants were housing developers that operated within the area for which the defendant local planning authority were responsible. The area included land at Stevenage West that had been identified, in policies 8 and 9 of the 1998 Hertfordshire structure plan review, as being suitable for strategic housing allocation and exclusion from the green belt. The defendants produced a draft district plan that, in order to comply with policies 8 and 9, designated the land at Stevenage West for the development of 1,000 dwellings.
Objections were raised to the draft plan, and an inquiry was held. By the date of the inquiry, the county council responsible for the structure plan review had reconsidered policy 8 and had concluded that there was no longer a requirement for strategic greenfield allocations was no longer required within the plan period. They published draft alterations. These replaced policy 8 with the bare statement that no strategic allocation would be identified in the review of local plans and that no further strategic-scale housing developments should be permitted in Hertfordshire.
The inspector conducting the inquiry concluded that the wording of the district plan should be altered in the light of the uncertainty over the strategic justification for the Stevenage West development. On his recommendation, the defendants qualified policy H2 with the statement: “The allocated land is safeguarded from development pending reconsideration and acceptance of its strategic justification.” Policy H2 went on to provide that the land could be released for development only if the new review to the structure plan, or some alternative form of reconsideration, determined that Stevenage West was required to meet the county’s development needs.
The claimants challenged the district plan under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. They sought to quash the qualification to policy H2 on the ground that it was not in general conformity with the structure plan in its current form. They also submitted that the defendants had erred in law by adopting the plan without considering the claimants’ objection to a proposed new green-belt boundary. The defendants did not oppose the latter ground, but argued that the court should exercise its discretion to refuse relief.
Held: The claim was allowed in part.
It was not unusual for further work or new thinking to put a question mark over a comparatively old structure plan policy. The words “general conformity” did not provide much flexibility to accommodate important adjustments through the local plan. However, in the public interest, a local plan should address relevant issues and do so accurately and fully. Where a district council judged that a reason for caution arose in respect of a structure plan policy, but that it was unlikely to affect the basic correctness of the structure plan, they might reasonably choose to adopt a local plan that generally conformed with the structure plan but that set out a particular reservation, qualification or reason for caution in respect of that policy. On the other hand, to allocate land for strategic housing in terms that were so qualified that it was clear that the allocation was unlikely to be translated into planning permissions within the plan period would not be in general conformity with a structure plan that necessitated allocation.
In the present case, the inspector, in recommending the wording of policy H2 that had been adopted by the defendants, had not thought or intended that his formulation would be taken as meaning that the strategic provision might not proceed within the plan period. Policy H2 had to be read in that context. The words “in general conformity” were wide enough to encompass a reproduction of the structure plan policy in the local plan subject to a qualification as to justification or timing that none the less contemplated that the purpose of the strategic policy might be achieved within the plan period. The way in which the defendants had worded policy H2 and its explanatory material fell within the scope of that phrase, and the claim on that ground would be dismissed.
As to the green-belt point, to quash the relevant parts of the district plan would, on a true construction of section 287, require the defendants to start the plan process afresh for the quashed parts of the plan. Although this might take some time, that was not a compelling objection in the circumstances. Accordingly, the proposals map would be quashed in so far as it identified the amended green-belt boundary.
Robin Purchas QC and Douglas Edwards (instructed by Davies & Partners, of Gloucester) appeared for the claimants; Timothy Straker QC and Richard Humphreys (instructed by the legal department of Stevenage Borough Council) appeared for the defendants.
Sally Dobson, barrister
