First Corporate Shipping Limited v North Somerset Council

Whether a local planning authority should hold a further local inquiry after rejecting an inspector’s recommendation is a matter for the authority’s discretion. The decision is reviewable only on Wednesbury grounds. The court asks whether the authority acted irrationally, perversely, or failed to take relevant matters into account.

A further inquiry is not required merely because the inspector’s recommendation was based on an acknowledged mistake, provided the authority properly considers the objections and has rational grounds for correcting that mistake. The court also noted, obiter, the difficulty of using the statutory quashing remedy to challenge a procedural refusal where declaration or remission would be more appropriate.

First Corporate Shipping Limited operated Royal Portbury Dock and objected to the Woodspring local plan on the basis that insufficient land had been allocated for the dock’s expansion. A planning inspector recommended allocation of a further 50 hectares, but North Somerset Council rejected that recommendation after concluding that the inspector had misunderstood the structure plan and that the existing allocation had in fact been met.

The Council declined to hold a further local inquiry. Forbes J rejected the challenge under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The central issue on appeal was whether the Council’s refusal to hold another inquiry was irrational or otherwise unlawful.

1. Appeal dismissed. North Somerset Council’s decision not to hold a further local inquiry was lawful and was not perverse or Wednesbury unreasonable.
2. The decision whether to hold a further inquiry was discretionary. The court therefore applied the strict public-law threshold identified in Warren v Uttlesford District Council (1997) JPL 1130.
3. The inspector’s recommendation depended on two errors: he treated the structure-plan allocation as extending beyond the statutory dock area, and he mistakenly concluded that there was a 50-hectare shortfall. Once the Council recognised that the allocation had been met, the basis of the recommendation disappeared. It would have been irrational for the Council to ignore that correction.
4. The proposed further inquiry would in substance have allowed the appellant to pursue a broader case for additional development outside the current structure-plan allocation, including development affecting Green Belt land. That case had been presented only in outline at the original inquiry and was not supported by expert evidence dealing with specific sites.
5. The Council had adequately considered the appellant’s objections and representations. The public interest in concluding the local-plan process and the imminent replacement structure plan were also relevant considerations.
6. Buxton LJ added obiter observations concerning the difficulty of granting relief under section 287 for a procedural error in the inquiry process, particularly where the applicant sought to quash plan provisions that it had not challenged. Lord Justice Peter Gibson expressly associated himself with those observations. The formal order was dismissal of the appeal with costs, subject to detailed assessment.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — appeal dismissed with costs.
• High Court, Administrative Court — Forbes J rejected the challenge to the Council’s refusal to hold a further local inquiry.