Bedfordia Plc and Huntingdonshire District Council and Secretary of State
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE LINDSAY |
| Judgment Date | 11 November 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] EWHC 2655 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 11 November 2003 |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/378/2003 |
[2003] EWHC 2655 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay
Case No: CO/378/2003
Mr Meyric Lewis (instructed by Hewitsons) for the Claimant
Mr Robin Purchas Q.C. and Miss Joanna Clayton (instructed by Huntingdonshire District Council) for the 1 st Defendant
Introduction
1. This is an application, under section 287 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), which seeks to challenge the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration in respect of which notice of adoption was published by the First Defendant, Huntingdonshire District Council (“Huntingdon”), on 18 th December 2002. The Claimant, Bedfordia plc (“Bedfordia”), whilst succeeding before an Inspector upon her Inquiry into objections to the Alteration plan in the sense that she recommended that its site should be allocated for housing, then found that Huntingdon declined to accept her recommendation. In essence Bedfordia, which appears by Mr Meyric Lewis, argues that Huntingdon was wrong not to adopt an Inspector's recommendation and that it failed adequately to explain why it did not. Huntingdon, which appears by Mr Purchas Q.C. leading Miss J. Clayton, argues that Huntingdon's conclusion not to allocate the site is invulnerable both as to the decision and the reasons for it.
2. This case was the second of two, heard in immediate succession, both concerned with the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration. In the first, Fairfield Partnership –v—Huntingdonshire DC and Anor [2003] EWHC 2430 Admin, I dealt in my judgment of 23 rd October 2003 with a case in which the claimant's argument, in effect, was that Huntingdon had been wrong in following the Inspector's recommendation; here the argument, as I have said, is that Huntingdon was wrong in not following her. So far as the law is concerned I am again required to address the approach proper to a Local Planning Authority when it comes to consider an Inspector's recommendations. However, as this case is the converse, so to speak, of Fairfield, I have had the benefit of the citation to me of cases other than those considered in Fairfield. Before I come to the law, though, I need to say something as to the planning history of the matter.
The Planning History
3. Bedfordia has an interest in land at Bedfordia Fields, Eaton Park, Eaton Socon, St Neots, Cambridgeshire (“the Site”). Between 7 th March 2000 and 4 th May 2001 Miss R.M. Whittaker (“the Inspector”) had the conduct of a Public Inquiry into objections to the Deposit Draft of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration, Housing Land and Planning Obligations. In her report of 27 th February 2002 the Inspector set out the yet earlier planning history of the area. She had a good many objections to consider, amongst which was one concerning the Site. The amount and distribution of housing land was, as she recognised, one of the main policy issues she needed to address.
4. In dealing in detail with housing supply the Inspector first specified some 43 sites which Huntingdon had proposed for housing and as to which she endorsed that allocation. In doing so she said:-
“….. I have assumed that [Huntingdon] persist with the allocations which they propose in the Group Villages and which are not the subject of objections.”
I shall return later to the subject of housing development in some villages. Making allowance for, inter alia, the 3136 dwellings which would represent appropriate development of those 43 sites, the Inspector foresaw a need for allocation of land for about a further 1479 dwellings. She then turned to where that land might be found.
5. Amongst the land considered was the Site, an area of 14.13 h.a. on the eastern edge of Eaton Socon between the urban edge of the town and the Great Ouse river. She described it as forming part of a swathe of open land that lies on both sides of the river dividing the built up areas of St. Neots. It was designated as open space in the adopted Local Plan and was in use as pasture. The objector sought only 3.04 h.a. of the 14.13 h.a. to be allocated as housing, dangling the prospect (as it seems to me) of the remainder being dedicated as public open space. Huntingdon opposed the allocation of any part of the Site to housing. The Inspector mentioned that as then-recently as 4 th April 2000 an essentially identical proposal had, on appeal, been dismissed on the ground that it would be harmful to the character and setting of Eaton Socon and would be contrary to the wider principles of the government's policies as to sustainable development. She acknowledged that the Site was “greenfield in nature”, open in character and that, in one perspective, had “a countryside feel”. Nonetheless she felt that a sensitively designed housing scheme on part only of the Site, one incorporating suitable planting and landscaping, could “soften the urban edge and enhance the overall quality of the countryside and enhance the enjoyment of the footpaths which run along the River Great Ouse”. There was a potential, she felt, “for considerable enhancement of the urban edge”. She referred to the then only recently revised government guidelines, PPG3 (March 2000) and the search sequence commended to Local Planning Authorities in paragraph 30 thereof. She said at OS 17.10:-
“In my assessment, the main issue in relation to this site is whether the acceptability of the site in terms of paragraph 30 of PPG3 and the rôle it could play in achieving reduced car borne trip generation is outweighed by the acknowledged harm that an allocation would cause to the countryside. I consider therefore that the site is worthy of consideration alongside other acceptable sites.”
She therefore carried the Site, it having survived, so to speak, the first round, on to a second round. The 13 sites that survived the first round, including the Site, offered the prospect of some 2273 dwellings, 800 more than were needed. She whittled the 13 sites down to 11 but the Site was within the 11 as to which she recommended allocation for housing. In doing so she had concluded that urban extension was the most sustainable option available.
6. Huntingdon's Planning Officers prepared a detailed report headed “Local Plan Alteration: Proposed Modifications —Report by Head of Planning Services”. It said that the Council was required to consider its response to each of the Inspector's recommendations. It said:-
“The Inspector's report is not binding upon the Council, but case law has established that an authority must have adequate reasons for rejecting an Inspector's views. In practice this means that authorities should accept an Inspector's findings unless there are very good reasons to reject them. To do otherwise risks legal challenges to the plan and further delays in getting the new policies adopted.”
Unlike the position as it was in Fairfield supra, neither side before me argues that that sets the hurdle either too high or too low before a recommendation can be departed from. I shall therefore assume that the planning officers set the hurdle at the right height. The report considered the 11 sites on the Inspector's recommended list and recognised that whilst most of them needed to be allocated there were 2 cases in which the Inspector had not appropriately weighed up the material considerations. The Site was one of the two and of it the report said:-
“The other exception concerns Bedfordia Fields, Eaton Socon. The Inspector's recommendation that this site be allocated derives from her conclusion that its location in relation to the search sequence in PPG3 and its relative accessibility by non-car modes outweigh the harm to the countryside that would result from its development. The relevance of these material considerations can be accepted, but it is considered that the Inspector has given insufficient weight to the visual harm that would result from the loss of countryside in this location. The landscape value of keeping this land open has been recognised by previous Inspectors (as detailed in the Council's evidence to the Inquiry into the Local Plan Alteration), and is a matter to which considerable weight should be attached. Taking the various material considerations noted by the Inspector into account, it is considered that this weight is such as to count against the allocation of the site for development.”
7. The Planning Officers’ report had a detailed Schedule which set out in tabular form, with respect to each site required to be considered, the Inspector's recommendation, the proposed response suggested in the report and the reasons for that proposed response. As to the Site the proposal was not to accept the recommendation and detailed proposed reasons were given at some length to support that suggested non-acceptance.
8. Huntingdon met on 12 th June 2002 to consider its response to the Inspector's report. Members had the Planning Officers’ report before them as Appendix C. It was resolved to adopt a Schedule of Decisions and Reasons – Appendix C – as the response. Huntingdon said that in a few cases it considered that adequate reasons existed for it not to accept the Inspector's recommendations and gave the Site as amongst those few cases. After summarising the passage I have cited from OS17.10 Huntingdon resolved upon reasons as follows:-
“The Council acknowledges the relevance of these material considerations, and accepts that they pull in different directions. However, it gives greater weight than the...
To continue reading
Request your trial