JS Bloor (Wilmslow) Ltd. & Ors v First Secretary of State

A non-statutory planning procedure does not create a legitimate expectation beyond its express terms. Guidance providing for consultation and written representations after a panel report did not promise that the panel would be reconvened, or that major changes would receive independent scrutiny. The decision-maker could depart from the panel’s recommendations where the published procedure permitted him to consider all representations and reach his own view. Fairness required consideration of the request and representations, but did not impose a duty to reopen the examination. A decision not to do so was reviewable on ordinary Wednesbury principles. Policies should be read coherently: an overall priority for previously developed land may contain an internal sequence between existing buildings and other previously developed land.

The claimant house builders challenged the First Secretary of State’s issue of Regional Planning Guidance for the North West, RPG13. They attacked policies SD4, UR7 and UR4 on procedural grounds, alleging breach of legitimate expectation, departure from published policy and unfairness. They also challenged the adequacy of the reasons for changing the recycling targets in policy UR4. A separate challenge alleged that policy DP1 was irrational because it conflicted with policies UR4 and UR8. The central issues were whether PPG11 required further independent scrutiny after the panel’s report, whether the reasons for the UR4 changes were adequate, and whether the policies were legally inconsistent.

1. The claim was dismissed. The claimants had no legitimate expectation that the public examination would be reopened, that meetings would be held with them, or that the Secretary of State would adopt any procedure other than that set out in PPG11.
2. PPG11 provided for written consultation after the panel’s report. Its references to exceptional meetings concerned unresolved matters on which the panel had insufficient evidence, or changes requiring further information about effective application. Neither circumstance applied. The examination concerned selected matters, not every important policy, and the panel’s report was only an important basis for the Secretary of State’s decision. The guidance contemplated changes outside matters examined by the panel.
3. The Secretary of State therefore acted consistently with PPG11. There was no departure from policy requiring reasons. Nor was there procedural unfairness. The claimants had a sufficient opportunity to make written representations, which were considered. Reopening the examination or arranging further meetings was discretionary. The decision not to do so was reviewable under ordinary Wednesbury principles and was not irrational.
4. The reasoning for the changes to policy UR4 was adequate and intelligible. The Secretary of State gave effect in part to the panel’s recommendations and, separately, raised the recycling targets to reduce greenfield development. Those were valid reasons, and the higher figures were not irrational.
5. Policy DP1 was not irrationally inconsistent with policies UR4 and UR8. The priority for redevelopment and reuse of vacant sites and buildings was to be pursued through the sequential approach in DP1. Within that priority, existing buildings came before other previously developed land. A first priority for previously developed land and buildings was compatible with that sequence.