Bersted Parish Council v Arun District Council

A planning authority deciding whether objections to proposed local-plan modifications justify a further inquiry must consider all material circumstances, including fairness to objectors. It must not apply a narrower test based only on whether new issues have arisen.

Where an inspector recommends additional housing subject to reviewing infrastructure implications, that review must precede fixing the increased allocation. A later development brief cannot replace the necessary plan-making judgment. A material legal error may justify quashing part of a plan where the court cannot conclude that the outcome would inevitably have been the same.

Bersted Parish Council challenged, under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the North Bersted housing allocation in the adopted Arun District Local Plan 2003. The allocation had increased from 350 to 650 dwellings following the inspector’s report.

The claimant alleged that the District Council failed properly to consider whether a further inquiry into objections to the proposed modification was required and adopted the increased allocation without first reviewing its infrastructure implications.

1. The claim succeeded and the relevant part of the Arun District Local Plan 2003 was quashed.
2. The Council failed properly to address whether a further inquiry should be held into objections to the proposed modification of policy SITE6. The relevant considerations included prior independent scrutiny, current planning guidance, the practical benefit of an inquiry, delay, the need for an up-to-date plan, and fairness to objectors and other parties. The Council’s focus on whether objections raised matters not considered at the first inquiry was incomplete.
3. The inspector’s recommendation was conditional. The proposed increase was subject to reviewing its implications for educational and other local services, facilities and the transport network. That review was intended to help determine how much additional housing could properly be allocated.
4. The Council therefore erred in treating infrastructure work as a parallel or subsequent development-brief exercise. The Full Council had not made a considered assessment of whether infrastructure could support 650 dwellings before adopting the plan.
5. Relief was discretionary, and caution was required because the allocation formed part of a wider housing and road strategy. Nevertheless, relief should be withheld only where the court is satisfied that the legal error could not have affected the outcome. Here, neither error was harmless: a properly considered inquiry might have affected the recommendation or the Council’s approach to infrastructure, and the housing figure required a fresh planning judgment.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.