Foster v Borough of Poole

A challenge to a local plan under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is confined to errors of law within the statutory grounds. It is not a further opportunity to contest planning merits, or to raise unrelated allegations about councillor or officer conduct. A procedural challenge requires a failure such as inadequate reasons that has caused substantial prejudice. Bare assertions unsupported by evidence cannot establish an arguable statutory ground. Complaints about documents or misconduct should be pursued through appropriate complaints mechanisms, not by an application to quash the plan.

Mr Foster applied to challenge the Poole Local Plan First Revision under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. He objected to planning choices, including the proposed New Harbour bridge and associated roads and the loss of heathland at Canford Heath. He also made unsupported allegations concerning misconduct, corruption, intimidation, harassment and the withholding of documents. The central issue was whether those matters disclosed a properly arguable statutory ground for quashing the plan.

1. The application was dismissed. The statutory challenge procedure under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 permits a challenge only where the local planning authority acted outside its powers or committed a procedural failure, such as a failure to give proper reasons, resulting in substantial prejudice.
2. The procedure does not provide a further opportunity to argue about the planning merits. Objections that a development proposal is undesirable, or that another solution would be better or cheaper, are not points of law within section 287.
3. Allegations about councillor or officer conduct are relevant only if connected to the preparation procedures for the local plan. Bare assertions of corruption, misconduct, intimidation, danger, harassment or concealment, unsupported by evidence, were not properly arguable grounds.
4. Complaints about the provision of documents or alleged misconduct should be directed, where appropriate, to the council’s internal complaints system or the Commission for Local Government Administration. An application under section 287 is not the proper vehicle for such complaints.
5. The adjournment request was refused. Challenges to development plans should be decided promptly so that the planning authority and those affected know their position. Given the misconceived nature of the application, an adjournment would serve no useful purpose and would cause further expense.