Martin Grant Homes Ltd & Anor, R (on the application of) v Wealden District Council

A local planning authority may possess a power to abandon an emerging local plan, but that power must not bypass transitional provisions enacted by Parliament. Where those provisions require the statutory process to continue, abandonment requires a very good reason. Administrative convenience, cost saving, governmental pressure, or the prospect of an earlier replacement plan do not suffice. A non-statutory plan cannot acquire greater weight merely because the statutory process has been abandoned. Planning control is governed by the statutory code, which must be followed unless a legally sufficient reason justifies departure.

The claimants sought judicial review of Wealden District Council’s decision to discontinue the statutory review of its emerging local plan, prepare a revised non-statutory plan, and commence work on a Local Development Framework under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

The claimants owned land that had previously been included in a draft housing allocation. They argued that discontinuing the statutory process deprived them and other objectors of the opportunity to present their objections at a public inquiry. The central issue was whether the Council could lawfully abandon the local plan process despite the transitional provisions in Schedule 8 to the 2004 Act.

1. Claim allowed. The Council’s decision to abandon the statutory local plan process was quashed. The decision to commence work on the Local Development Framework was not itself quashed.
2. Schedule 8 paragraphs 8 to 10 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 constituted Parliament’s transitional scheme for local plans already in preparation. Since the plan had reached the relevant stage and unresolved objections remained, paragraph 10 required the existing statutory process to continue, subject to procedural modifications. The process included republication under section 40(2) of the principal Act and a local inquiry.
3. The existence of a power to abandon an emerging plan was accepted on the authority of Persimmon Homes (Thames Valley) Ltd v North Hertfordshire District Council [2001] 1 WLR 2393. That power was not unrestricted. It could not be used to override the statutory transitional scheme. The circumstances relied on here, including economy, duplication, housing pressure and concentration of resources on the LDF, did not constitute a very good reason for departure.
4. The pressure communicated by the Government Office for the South East, including reference to possible effects on Planning Delivery Grant, was inappropriate. A Government department should not pressure a local authority to disregard statutory procedures. The point was not essential to the conclusion.
5. The non-statutory plan was not entitled to greater weight than an emerging plan would have received before the statutory inquiry. Contentious policies unsupported by an inspector’s consideration were likely to carry limited weight.
6. The principle stated in Pioneer Aggregates v Secretary of State for the Environment [1985] 1 AC 132 was applied: planning control is a statutory code, and courts must give effect to Parliament’s intention rather than adopt a supposedly fairer or more economical solution inconsistent with that code.
7. The Council was required to continue the statutory local plan process. Costs were subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.