Inspector rejecting proposed development and recommending modification of development plan policies – Respondents adopting inspector’s recommendations – Applicant objecting to proposed modifications – Whether respondents failing properly to consider applicant’s objections regarding proposed green belt boundary – Application allowed
The respondent council, with the support of the applicant developer, sought to generate employment and economic growth at Rossington. Policy RP1 of the Doncaster unitary development plan (UDP) provided for the applicant’s proposed development of 930ha of green belt land for employment, housing and recreational uses. The respondents placed the UDP on deposit. Following a number of objections to the policy, an inquiry was held. The inspector concluded that there was insufficient justification to release such a substantial area of green belt land, and he recommended that various policies be modified. Discussions then took place between the respondents and the applicant took place, including the consideration of more limited proposals at Rossington.
In 1997 the respondents adopted the inspector’s reasoning and recommendations, and published their modifications, which proposed that the Rossington land should be included in the green belt. The applicant objected to these modifications, notably to a proposed inner green belt boundary in respect of land to the west and south of Rossington, and requested a further inquiry. In a report dated 9 February 1998, the respondents concluded that the key planning issues had been thoroughly examined and that no further inquiry was necessary. The UDP was adopted in July 1998. Pursuant to section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the applicant sought to quash the UDP proposal to include land at Rossington in the green belt, . It was submitted that: (1) the respondents had failed to have regard to the applicant’s objections to the inner green belt boundary; and (2) the respondents had acted unfairly in failing to hold a further inquiry into these objections.
Held: The application was allowed.
1. The inspector’s reasoning had not addressed the particular merits of a green belt boundary. In simply relying upon the inspector’s report, the respondents had failed to consider the applicant’s objections and proposals in any proper or substantial sense. They had, in fact, failed to provide any relevant reason for their rejection.
2. At the original inquiry, the issues under debate and examination had not included the inner green belt boundary. In those circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the respondents to have considered holding a further inquiry into that part of the objection. They had failed to comply with the advice in PPG 12.
Malcolm Spence QC and Ian Albutt (instructed by Cobbetts, of Manchester) appeared for the applicant; Simon Pickles and Richard Harwood (instructed by Wilbraham & Co, of Leeds) appeared for the respondents.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
