Bedfordia Plc v Huntingdonshire District Council & Anor

A local planning authority is not bound to accept an inspector’s recommendation. It must, however, consider the recommendation conscientiously and give adequate reasons for departing from it. The reasons must show that the authority understood and grappled with the inspector’s reasoning, at least in substance.

The required degree of detail depends on the issue. Matters of pure planning judgment, including the weight given to competing material considerations, generally require less explanation and are primarily for the authority. A prior view may be maintained if the decision-maker remains open-minded and genuinely considers the inspector’s conclusions. Within the same level of a planning-policy hierarchy, the authority retains a reasonable freedom of choice.

The claimant challenged the adoption of an alteration to the Huntingdonshire Local Plan under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. An inspector had recommended allocating the claimant’s land at Bedfordia Fields for housing. Huntingdonshire District Council declined to follow that recommendation, principally because it gave greater weight to the visual harm and landscape value associated with developing the site.

The claimant argued that the Council had unlawfully failed to explain its departure from the inspector, had treated less sustainable sites preferentially, and had approached the matter with a closed mind. The central issue was whether the Council’s decisions and reasons complied with the statutory requirements.

1. Claim dismissed. The Council’s decisions and reasons disclosed no material error of law and the local plan alteration was not quashed.
2. Under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, read with regulations 27 to 29 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) (England) Regulations 1999, a local planning authority must state its decisions and its reasons where they do not follow an inspector’s recommendation. The authority remains the body entrusted with the decision and has the last word.
3. Where the authority is effectively both advocate and judge, it must weigh the issues thoroughly, conscientiously and fairly. Its reasons must show that it understood and grappled with the inspector’s reasoning and, at least in essence, why it rejected it. A recommendation has not been properly considered if it was plainly misunderstood.
4. The degree of particularity required depends on the issue. Pure planning judgments may require little elaboration. The weight given to a material consideration is for the authority, and the court will intervene only where the resulting judgment is irrational in the relevant public-law sense.
5. The Council was entitled to adhere to its earlier view about the visual harm caused by development. That did not establish a closed mind. The detailed reports, recognition that competing considerations pulled in different directions, and acceptance of many of the inspector’s recommendations showed genuine consideration.
6. The Council was entitled to retain village sites with existing planning permission because deleting them would serve no practical purpose. It was also entitled to treat Yaxley as effectively equal in the settlement hierarchy to the market towns and to prefer it to Bedfordia Fields. The proposed dedication of open land had been considered, but its weight was a matter for the Council.