Blanefield Property Company Ltd v Salisbury District Council

A challenge to a local plan under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is effectively a judicial review challenge. A local planning authority must give proper, adequate and intelligible reasons for its decisions on objections, but a deficiency in reasons warrants relief only where the applicant’s interests have been substantially prejudiced. The court will not interfere with planning judgment or the interpretation of a plan policy unless the decision is irrational or otherwise unlawful. A material change after an Inspector’s report must normally be considered, but does not automatically require a further inquiry. Where a proposed policy is new and was not considered at the deposit stage, the authority need not treat it as an objection to a proposed modification. The claim was dismissed.

Blanefield, the leasehold owner of Old Sarum Airfield, challenged Salisbury District Council’s adoption of the 2003 Replacement Local Plan under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The challenge concerned the inclusion of the Compass Maritime site within the Landscape Setting of Salisbury and Wilton and the Council’s refusal to introduce a new criteria-based policy for development at the airfield. Blanefield alleged failure to implement the local plan Inspector’s recommendation, inadequate reasons, unfairness, irrationality and failure to take account of the quashing of an earlier Conservation Area designation.

The central questions were whether the Council had lawfully interpreted and implemented the Inspector’s recommendation and whether it had lawfully dealt with Blanefield’s proposed new policy and the relevant planning considerations.

1. Disposition. The application to quash the 2003 Replacement Local Plan was dismissed. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, subject to agreement or standard-basis assessment.

2. Legal framework. Section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides a statutory validity challenge which is effectively equivalent to judicial review. The authority must give proper, adequate and intelligible reasons addressing substantial points raised. Relief is available for inadequate reasons only where the applicant’s interests have been substantially prejudiced.

3. Boundary issue. The Council reasonably interpreted the Inspector’s reference to the area of commercial buildings south of the Portway and the Sarum Centre as excluding the established commercial buildings, but not the predominantly open Compass Maritime site. The Council had corrected the mapping error and its reasons were sufficient. The interpretation was primarily a matter for the Council, subject to irrationality review.

4. Airfield policy issue. The proposed criteria-based policy was a new proposal, not an objection to the proposed modifications which the Council was required to determine. In any event, the Council had adequately explained that the principle of development had already been independently considered by two Inspectors, that a new policy would require further modifications and probably a further inquiry, and that development proposals could be considered under policy E17 alongside the Landscape Setting designation and policy C7.

5. The quashing of the Conservation Area designation did not materially affect the Inspectors’ reasoning or the Council’s decision. The Council was entitled to regard the designation’s historic significance as distinct from the landscape issues relevant to the local plan.

6. A material change after an Inspector has reported normally requires consideration, but does not itself require a reopened or further inquiry. The authority must exercise its discretion in light of all relevant circumstances.

First-instance judicial review proceedings in the Administrative Court. The application was dismissed. The claimant was given no permission-to-appeal application on its instructions.