Local plan review — Change to existing development plan system — Transitional provisions — Defendants seeking to abandon emerging plan — Whether defendants entitled to withdraw local plan — Claim allowed
The claimants owned land within the administrative boundary of the defendant council. They wished to promote housing development, employment and the provision of open space on the site together with enhanced pedestrian and cycling links to the town centre. The land was not allocated for housing in the adopted local plan. However, the structure plan, which had been adopted after the local plan, required an additional 3,300 houses to be provided within the district between 2006 and 2011. In order to fulfil the structure plan requirements, the defendants determined to review their adopted local plan. They resolved to replace the claimants’ site, within the emerging local plan, with two alternative sites.
Following the publication of the emerging local plan review, the government published a new Town and Country Planning Bill proposing the replacement of the existing development plan system with a system of local development frameworks (LDFs). The bill received Royal Assent in July 2004 as the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and it came into effect in September 2004. The Act required each local planning authority to prepare an LDF.
The defendants resolved to: (i) withdraw the emerging local plan; (ii) adopt a revised non-statutory draft plan to be approved for the purposes of development control; and (iii) develop an LDF. The defendants’ decision to withdraw the emerging local plan meant that it would not be subject to an inquiry. The claimants complained that they would be prevented from exercising their statutory right to make objections to allocated housing sites and to promote their own site at an inquiry. They sought judicial review of the defendants’ decision.
Held: The claim was allowed.
Local authorities had the power to withdraw local plans from the local plan process only in exceptional circumstances, where they were satisfied that the proposals could not, even if modified, be adopted. The defendants’ main reason for abandoning the local plan process was to avoid an inquiry in order to save the expense and labour costs, that could otherwise be diverted to the preparation of the LDF. That did not fall within the narrow circumstances that could exceptionally justify the decision to abandon the local plan: Persimmon Homes (Thames Valley) Ltd v North Hertfordshire District Council [2001] EWHC Admin 565; [2001] 1 WLR 2393 considered.
The effect of transitional arrangements set out in paras 8 to 10 of Schedule 8 to the 2004 Act was that, where a local planning authority had published the statutory notice of deposit pursuant to section 40(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 but an inspector had not been appointed under section 42, the preparation of the draft plan would continue. The power to withdraw a local plan was not to be used to override transitional provisions enacted by parliament to deal with a particular situation such as the present. The statutory code had to be followed unless there was a good reason not to do so, and the defendants’ view that it would be more economical to abandon the local plan was not a sufficient reason.
Peter Village QC and Robert White (instructed by Harold Benjamin, of Hatfield) appeared for the claimants; Richard Drabble QC and James Maurici (instructed by the solicitor to Wealden District Council) appeared for the defendants.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
