Bersted Parish Council v Arun District Council

A local planning authority deciding whether to hold a further inquiry into objections to proposed modifications must consider all materially relevant circumstances, including fairness, independent scrutiny, current planning guidance, practical benefit and delay. It must not treat the inquiry decision as turning solely on whether the objections raise matters previously considered.

Where an inspector recommends additional housing subject to reviewing infrastructure implications, the review is a precondition to deciding the appropriate allocation. Infrastructure cannot simply be left for later consideration through a development brief.

Quashing relief may be granted for procedural or legal error where the outcome might have been different, although the court must exercise particular caution where the challenged allocation forms part of a comprehensive planning strategy.

The claimant challenged under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the adoption of part of the defendant authority’s local plan. The challenge concerned the allocation of 650 dwellings at North Bersted under policy SITE6.

The claimant alleged that the authority failed properly to consider whether to hold a further inquiry into objections to proposed modifications, and adopted the increased allocation without first reviewing whether the necessary infrastructure could support it. The central issues were whether the authority acted within its statutory powers and, if not, whether the relevant part of the plan should be quashed.

1. Further inquiry. The authority made a legal error by failing properly to address whether a further inquiry should be held into objections to the proposed modifications to policy SITE6. The correct decision required consideration of all relevant circumstances, including whether the issues had received independent scrutiny, current planning guidance, the practical benefit of an inquiry, delay, and fairness to objectors and other parties. The authority’s advice focused inadequately on whether the objections raised matters already considered and did not direct members clearly to the wider relevant considerations.
2. Infrastructure review. The inspector’s recommendation to increase the North Bersted allocation was conditional. The authority was required first to review the implications for educational and other local services and facilities and the transport network, in order to determine what level of additional housing could properly be included. The authority instead proceeded on the basis that infrastructure could be addressed later through the development brief. That interpretation was not reasonably open to it. There had been no considered assessment by the Full Council before adoption.
3. Relief. Although section 287 did not require proof of substantial prejudice for these errors, prejudice was relevant to the court’s discretion. The court should normally grant relief where unlawful decision-making may have affected the outcome, while exercising particular caution where quashing part of a local plan would disrupt a comprehensive strategy. Here, it was possible that a properly considered inquiry decision or infrastructure assessment could have produced a different allocation.
4. Order. The claim succeeded. The North Bersted allocation was quashed in full, rather than partially retained, because a partial order would leave the appropriate housing level, area and infrastructure implications uncertain. Those matters were to be examined afresh through the statutory alteration procedure.