Stirk & Ors v Bridgnorth District Council

When a local planning authority considers objections to a local plan, it must engage thoroughly, conscientiously and fairly with the objections, the inspector’s report and material changes in the planning framework. That obligation is enhanced where the authority is both proposer and judge. The authority must confront recommendations identifying unresolved issues and balance competing considerations. It cannot avoid doing so by repeating a policy or principle that the inspector has rejected. A further inquiry may be required where the first inquiry left material issues insufficiently investigated and there is unfinished business requiring proper consideration.

A consortium of landowners challenged the adoption of a local plan under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The challenge concerned green belt boundaries around Albrighton. A planning inspector had rejected the council’s reliance on preserving existing limits as a complete answer and recommended further consideration of possible expansion.

The council rejected the recommendation, repeated its earlier reasons and refused a further public inquiry. A Deputy Judge of the Queen’s Bench Division upheld the consortium’s challenge, finding that the council had inadequately considered the inspector’s report and had acted unfairly in refusing a further inquiry. The council appealed. The central issues were whether its consideration and reasons were adequate and whether the refusal of a further inquiry was fair.

The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Lord Justice Thorpe gave the judgment, with Lord Justices Hobhouse and Leggatt agreeing. The orders below were upheld. The appeal was dismissed with costs and leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

1. The statutory framework required a district council preparing a local plan to consider representations and objections, hold an inquiry where objections were duly made, prepare a statement of decisions in light of the inspector’s report, and follow further prescribed steps where it rejected recommendations. The relevant framework included section 36 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and regulations 16 to 18 of the Town and County Planning (Development Plan) Regulations 1991.
2. Where a council is both proposer and judge, its obligation to deal thoroughly, conscientiously and fairly with objections is enhanced. It must address material developments, relevant policy directions, the inspector’s reasoning and recommendations, and the arguments supporting and opposing a proposed modification.
3. The council had failed to perform that obligation. The inspector had rejected the principle on which the council relied and had identified an unresolved issue requiring further investigation because the evidence was inadequate. The council’s subsequent decision ignored the changed planning context, the inspector’s conclusions and the officers’ case for relaxation, and merely repeated the rejected principle.
4. The first inquiry could not be treated as conclusive where it had left material issues insufficiently investigated. The council could not fairly refuse a further inquiry by relying on the earlier debate while avoiding the unfinished business identified by the inspector.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [1996] EWCA Civ 701, the court dismissed the council’s appeal with costs and upheld the orders below.
2. High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: On 10 July 1995, Mr Gerald Moriarty QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge, found for the consortium on the adequacy of the council’s consideration and its refusal to hold a further inquiry.