The decision in Hundal v South Bucks District Council [2012] EWHC 791 (Admin); [2012] PLSCS 90 contains some helpful guidance for local planning authorities and inspectors in the production and examination of development plan documents. In that case, the claimant was concerned to change the designation of the rear garden of his house as part of the green belt. Prior to 1999, it had not formed part of the green belt.
He applied to the court under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (“the 2004 Act”) for an order quashing a core strategy adopted by the first defendant in 2011, to the extent that it included the rear garden of his house in the green belt. He contended that the rear garden had been unlawfully included in the green belt in the local plan adopted in 1999. Accordingly he maintained that the inspector who carried out the independent examination of the core strategy in 2011 had erred in law in concluding that the core strategy was sound.
The court rejected his application, holding that the inspector had not so erred. The 1999 local plan had been adopted without any challenge to its validity, and the first defendant was entitled to proceed on the basis that it was valid and lawful. It was an essential feature of the regulatory scheme that challenges to any relevant planning decision had to be made swiftly so that, within reason, there was as much certainty as possible as to the limits on land use and development that applied to different areas.
The purpose of the development of the core strategy was not to consider or rectify historic errors of law. The core strategy was a prospective document, setting out the overall strategy to be adopted in relation to the future development and use of the land in question.
Similarly, it was not the function of the inspector to substitute his or her decision as to the policy that ought to be adopted for that of the first defendant or to correct historic errors of law in adopted plans. The function of the inspector was to examine the legal compliance of the first defendant’s policy as a whole. Furthermore, it was not the function of the inspector to adjudicate on individual objections. He or she had to take account of such objections, but only so far as they were relevant to the questions posed by section 20 of the 2004 Act.
John Martin
