Persimmon Homes (Thames Valley) Ltd & Ors v Stevenage Borough Council

The meaning of a statutory requirement that a local plan be in “general conformity” with a structure plan is a question of law for the court. The requirement permits considerable flexibility in implementing strategic policy. It accommodates changing circumstances and may allow particular conflicts between the plans.

Whether two plans are in general conformity is, however, a matter of degree and planning judgment. On a statutory planning challenge, the court reviews that judgment only for irrationality. A local plan may qualify the implementation of a structure-plan policy to reflect a proposed strategic review, provided it respects the existing policy and does not prejudge the review’s outcome.

Four developers challenged Stevenage Borough Council’s adoption of a local plan under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The structure plan allocated land west of the A1(M) for housing by 2011. The local plan identified land for 1,000 dwellings but safeguarded it from development pending reconsideration and acceptance of the allocation’s strategic justification.

HHJ Mole QC held that this qualified policy remained in general conformity with the structure plan, although he upheld a separate challenge concerning the Green Belt: [2005] EWHC 957 (Admin). The developers appealed only on general conformity. The central issues were the meaning of “general conformity”, the court’s role in deciding whether it existed, and whether the council’s qualified allocation was lawful.

By a majority, Laws and Wall LJJ, Lloyd LJ dissenting, the appeal was dismissed.

1. The meaning of “general conformity” was a question of statutory construction for the court. The expression had no statutory definition and had to be understood in its planning context. Long lead times, evolving planning needs and the statutory provision for resolving conflicts between plans favoured a flexible construction. General conformity required more than policies merely being similar in character, but it allowed considerable room for manoeuvre in the detailed measures used to reflect structure-plan policy.

2. A local plan could respond to the prospect that part of a structure plan might be reviewed. Any qualification had to respect the structure plan as it stood and could not prejudge the review’s outcome. The statutory requirement itself could not be displaced by later national policy, although changing policy was relevant to the manner in which an authority implemented the existing plan.

3. Whether particular plans were in general conformity was a matter of degree and planning judgment, potentially admitting more than one reasonable answer. Under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the court determined errors of construction but reviewed the planning authority’s application of the requirement only on Wednesbury principles. The dispute concerned the relationship between two public-interest planning policies, not governmental interference with constitutional rights warranting proportionality review.

4. The council had adopted the correct construction. It was entitled to identify the allocated land while safeguarding it pending reconsideration of the strategic justification. That approach preserved the possibility of development and did not prejudge the reconsideration. Given the uncertainty surrounding the underlying strategy, adoption of the qualified policy fell within the range of reasonable planning responses.

5. Lloyd LJ dissented. He considered that an important and detailed strategic policy had to be implemented without an indefinite condition precedent. In his view, the qualification obstructed Policy 9 and was both inconsistent with general conformity and irrational.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): By a majority, dismissed the developers’ appeal concerning the general-conformity ground: [2005] EWCA Civ 1365.
2. High Court, Administrative Court: HHJ Mole QC dismissed the general-conformity challenge but upheld the separate Green Belt challenge: [2005] EWHC 957 (Admin).