The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (the 2004 Act) abolishes the existing development plan system and requires local planning authorities to put in place local development frameworks comprising local development documents. The transition between the old and the new system is potentially problematic. However, one local planning authority decided that, since they would have to establish a local development framework, they would abandon the existing draft local plan and develop a local development framework in its place.
In R (on the application of Martin Grant Homes Ltd and another) v Wealden District Council [2005] EWHC 453; [2005] 11 EG 180 (CS), the developers owned land within the area of this particular local planning authority. They had hoped to persuade the planning inspector at an inquiry into the draft local plan to allocate the land for housing. They sought judicial review of the local planning authority’s decision to withdraw the emerging local plan, relying upon the transitional provisions contained in para 10 of Schedule 8 to the 2004 Act, which requires the 1990 procedure to continue subject to the modification that any decision of an inspector at the local plan inquiry is final.
Although the local planning authority argued that the claimants would not be prejudiced, since the inquiry into the local development framework was likely to take place only some six or 12 months later than anticipated under the old procedure, the court quashed the decision. It stated that the authority’s ability to abandon or withdraw an emerging local plan should not be used to override statutory provisions to deal with a particular situation, and that the transitional provisions of the 2004 Act had to be followed unless there was good reason not to do so.
The primacy of the development plan and the part that planning policies play in relation to the relevant decision-making process cannot be overemphasised. In this particular case, the developers’ position was potentially prejudiced by the authority’s actions. Although the public inquiry into the new local development framework would take place only six to 12 months after the scheduled date of the original public inquiry, this potentially meant that the future of the land in question was to be put on hold for a further 12-month period, causing the developers additional costs and uncertainty.
Gill Castorina is an associate at Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker (Europe) LLP
The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (the 2004 Act) abolishes the existing development plan system and requires local planning authorities to put in place local development frameworks comprising local development documents. The transition between the old and the new system is potentially problematic. However, one local planning authority decided that, since they would have to establish a local development framework, they would abandon the existing draft local plan and develop a local development framework in its place.
In R (on the application of Martin Grant Homes Ltd and another) v Wealden District Council [2005] EWHC 453; [2005] 11 EG 180 (CS), the developers owned land within the area of this particular local planning authority. They had hoped to persuade the planning inspector at an inquiry into the draft local plan to allocate the land for housing. They sought judicial review of the local planning authority’s decision to withdraw the emerging local plan, relying upon the transitional provisions contained in para 10 of Schedule 8 to the 2004 Act, which requires the 1990 procedure to continue subject to the modification that any decision of an inspector at the local plan inquiry is final.
Although the local planning authority argued that the claimants would not be prejudiced, since the inquiry into the local development framework was likely to take place only some six or 12 months later than anticipated under the old procedure, the court quashed the decision. It stated that the authority’s ability to abandon or withdraw an emerging local plan should not be used to override statutory provisions to deal with a particular situation, and that the transitional provisions of the 2004 Act had to be followed unless there was good reason not to do so.
The primacy of the development plan and the part that planning policies play in relation to the relevant decision-making process cannot be overemphasised. In this particular case, the developers’ position was potentially prejudiced by the authority’s actions. Although the public inquiry into the new local development framework would take place only six to 12 months after the scheduled date of the original public inquiry, this potentially meant that the future of the land in question was to be put on hold for a further 12-month period, causing the developers additional costs and uncertainty.
Gill Castorina is an associate at Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker (Europe) LLP
