Council for National Parks Ltd, R (on the application of) v Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority & Ors

Section 54A gives development plans enhanced status, but not absolute authority. A planning authority must assess conformity with the plan, identify all relevant material considerations, and decide whether their weight indicates departure. The precise effect of section 54A depends on the wording of the policy. A demanding policy threshold is not diluted, but a policy allowing development in exceptional circumstances may still be outweighed by other material considerations. Changed national planning policy and a statutory duty to foster local economic and social wellbeing may be material considerations. The authority’s assessment is primarily a matter of planning judgment.

The National Park Authority granted outline planning permission for the Bluestone holiday village, a major development within the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park. The Council for National Parks challenged the decision by judicial review, alleging breach of section 54A and apparent bias.

Jack J rejected both grounds in the High Court judgment identified as EWHC 2907 (ADMIN). On appeal, CNP pursued only the section 54A ground. The Authority also cross-appealed against the refusal to make a costs order. The central issue was whether local economic benefits, although insufficient to satisfy the development-plan requirement of an overriding national need, could nevertheless be material considerations indicating departure from the plan.

1. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed. The Authority’s cross-appeal on costs was also dismissed.
2. Plan-led decision-making. Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 enhances the status of the development plan but does not give it absolute authority. The decision remains one of planning judgment. The authority must consider whether the proposal accords with the plan, identify relevant material considerations, and decide whether their weight indicates that the plan should not be followed. This approach was consistent with City of Edinburgh Council v Secretary of State for Scotland [1997] 1 WLR 1447.
3. Policy wording. The operation of section 54A depends partly on the precise terms of the relevant policy. The Green Belt policy considered in Buckland and Boswell v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] EWHC Admin 524 had a distinctive requirement for very special circumstances, which section 54A did not dilute. Policy GE4 was less stringent and permitted major development in exceptional circumstances. Its criteria did not prevent other material considerations from indicating departure.
4. Material considerations. Planning Policy Wales (2002), which reflected changed national policy, and section 11A(1) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, requiring the Authority to seek to foster local economic and social wellbeing, were material considerations. They were capable of being weighed even though the local economic benefits did not satisfy GE4(1)’s requirement of an overriding national need. The Authority had properly considered the development plan and concluded that material considerations indicated otherwise.
5. Perversity and costs. A perversity challenge could not succeed on the facts, and the point had not properly been pursued below. The court declined to disturb Jack J’s generous costs discretion in favour of a limited-resource body pursuing a public-interest challenge, particularly because the Authority had adopted an all-or-nothing approach.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal against the judicial review decision and the Authority’s costs cross-appeal were dismissed: [2005] EWCA Civ 888.
• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Jack J rejected CNP’s challenges based on section 54A and apparent bias in the judgment identified as EWHC 2907 (ADMIN).