Town and country planning: structure plan

Structure plan - policies - claimants objecting to modifications to structure plan - objections rejected and plan adopted - whether reasons for rejection adequate - claim allowedSouth Northamptonshire Council v Northamptonshire County Council: Queen's Bench Division: Administrative Court: 20 December 2001The defendant county council was responsible for devising the structure plan for an area that incorporated South Northamptonshire and the urban borough of Northampton.

The claimant was the local authority for South Northamptonshire.

The defendant council 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.

It accordingly made provision in the draft structure plan for a strategic development area (SDA) within the claimant's area, within which provision was to be made for the anticipated overspill.Northampton Borough Council subsequently conducted a new urban capacity study.

In its preliminary report, it announced that Northampton appeared to have a capacity in excess of the housing requirements identified within the structure plan.The claimant council objected to the structure plan, which was by then in a modified form.

It contended that the new report showed that there was no need for an SDA, and expressed concern that it would nonetheless be required, under the structure plan, to implement the SDA in its next local plan.The defendant rejected the objection on the grounds, among other things, 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, among other things, management, phasing and review of local plan policy.

It accordingly adopted the plan without further modification.The claimant 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 claimant alleged that the defendant council's reasons were inadequate, in that it did not make it clear whether it had grappled with the fundamental point underlying the claimant's objections.Held: The claim was allowed.It was implicit in the defendant's reasons for rejecting the claimant's 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 claimant 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 defendant's reasoning failed to recognise the difference between the claimant's 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 claimant's situation was the reverse, in that it might be required, in order to implement the SDA, to earmark greenfield land for development while urban brownfield land in the Northampton borough was conserved, contrary to government policy.

The reasons given by the defendant did not enable the claimant to know whether those concerns had been addressed and rejected or simply not addressed at all.

It followed that the claimant was entitled to an order quashing the relevant part of the plan.However, because of the huge impact that such an order would have on the whole structure plan process, the order would be delayed to give the defendant an opportunity to address the claimant's concerns.Malcolm Spence QC (instructed by the solicitor to South Northamptonshire Council) appeared for the claimant; David Elvin QC and Daniel Kolinsky (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard) appeared for the defendant.