Structure plan – Policies – Claimants objecting to modifications to structure plan – Objections rejected and plan adopted – Whether reasons for rejection adequate – Claim allowed
The defendant county council were responsible for devising the structure plan for an area that incorporated South Northamptonshire and the urban borough of Northampton. The claimants were the local authority for South Northamptonshire. The defendants concluded, on the basis of studies into urban capacity, that the housing needs of Northampton for the period 1996 to 2016 could not be met within that borough. They accordingly made provision, in the draft structure plan, for a strategic development area (SDA) within the claimants’ area, within which provision was to be made for the anticipated overspill.
Northampton Borough Council subsequently conducted a new urban capacity study. In their preliminary report, they announced that Northampton appeared to have a capacity in excess of the housing requirements identified within the structure plan.
The claimants objected to the structure plan, which was by then in a modified form. They contended that the new report showed that there was no need for an SDA, and expressed concern that they would none the less be required, under the structure plan, to implement the SDA in their next local plan.
The defendants rejected the objection on the grounds, inter alia, that the study did not yet have the proven strength to justify a change of policy, and that, if its results proved on further investigation to be true, that could be compensated for by, inter alia, management, phasing and review of local-plan policy. They accordingly adopted the plan without further modification.
The claimants brought proceedings under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to quash that decision, pursuant to regulations 16(1) and 17(6) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) (England) Regulations 1999. The claimants alleged that the defendants’ reasons were inadequate, in that they did not make it clear whether they had grappled with the fundamental point underlying the claimants’ objections.
Held: The claim was allowed.
It was implicit in the defendants’ reasons for rejecting the claimants’ objections that there was no need to delay the adoption of the structure plan to take account of the new study, since that study, once fully analysed, could be allowed for in reviews and phasing provisions. That approach failed to address the point that the fundamental requirement to provide an SDA would remain in circumstances where the claimants believed that it was no longer needed. The provisions for phasing and review related only to the manner of implementation of the SDA, and could not effect the essential requirement to provide one. The defendants’ reasoning failed to recognise the difference between the claimants’ position and that of the borough council. The borough council could easily take a phasing approach, so that, as and when more housing land was needed, their local plan could take that into account and provide for it. The claimants’ situation was the reverse, in that they might be required, in order to implement the SDA, to earmark greenfield land for development while urban brownfield land in Northampton borough was conserved, contrary to government policy. The reasons given by the defendants did not enable the claimants to know whether those concerns had been addressed and rejected or simply not addressed at all. It followed that the claimants were entitled to an order quashing the relevant part of the plan. However, due to the huge impact that such an order would have on the whole structure plan process, the order would be delayed to give the defendants an opportunity to address the claimants’ concerns.
Malcolm Spence QC (instructed by the solicitor to South Northamptonshire Council) appeared for the claimants; David Elvin QC and Daniel Kolinsky (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard) appeared for the defendants.
Sally Dobson, barrister
