Local plan – Need for airport-related housing – Proposal for single site modified after public inquiry to spread houses among villages – Parish councils supporting single site proposal not heard at inquiry – Councils seeking second inquiry – Whether planning authority required to hold new inquiry – Judge refusing application – Appeal dismissed
The local planning authority, the LPA, prepared a local plan under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Act, proposing substantial housing development in the parishes of Felsted, Takeley, Birchanger and Little Dunmow. The LPA were required by the Essex Structure Plan to make contingent provision for 2,500 airport-related houses should parliament authorise expansion at Stansted Airport. The environmental impact was accepted as substantial and adverse. The LPA’s original proposals provided for all the houses to be built on a single site at Easton Park. A number of objections were received. Under the Act, the LPA were obliged to hold a public inquiry. The parish councils involved (the councils), wished to appear at this inquiry, both to support the LPA and to point out the adverse effect of further housing in the parishes, as was being suggested by the Easton Park objectors, but the inspector did not permit them to appear. His report recommended abandonning the single site proposal and spreading the housing among several parishes instead. The LPA decided to alter the local plan accordingly and duly advertised the proposed modifications, giving time for objections to them. The councils objected. The LPA were obliged to consider objections and although entitled to hold a new public inquiry, they were not expressly obliged under the Act to do so. They considered the objections, decided not to open another inquiry and to follow the inspector’s recommendations. The councils sought to challenge the legality of the LPA’s decision not to open a new inquiry. The judge accepted that the combination of: (1) the fact that the only professional witness for the LPA disagreed with the value judgment of his authority; and (2) the fact that the councils were denied the opportunity of appearing in front of the inspector, disadvantaged the councils, but rejected the application and the councils appealed.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. There had been no failure to comply with any requirement of the Act or regulations made thereunder and it was common ground that there was no legal requirement on LPAs who proposed to make even significant modifications to their original proposals for a local plan always to have a new inquiry.
2. The court had power to quash the plan if the LPA or the inspector exercised any discretion which they had unlawfully. On an application under section 287 of the Act, the question for the court was whether the adoption of the plan in all the circumstances of the case was within the powers conferred on the LPA by the Act, and the correct approach was to ask whether, on normal judicial review principles as applied to local authorities, the decision not to open a new inquiry was an illegal one. The test was not whether the LPA had behaved fairly vis a vis the councils.
John Steel QC with Murray Hunt (instructed by Hewitson Becke and Shaw, of Northampton) appeared for the appellants; Duncan Ouseley QC with Thomas Hill (instructed by Jameson & Hill, of Hertford) appeared for the respondent.
