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

“General conformity” between a local plan and a structure plan allows some flexibility, but it does not permit important adjustments to the structure plan’s strategic proposals. A local plan may qualify or explain a strategic allocation where it still contemplates that the allocation may be implemented during the plan period. If development is considered unlikely to proceed at all during that period, the appropriate course may be withdrawal or omission of the allocation. The question is whether the local plan’s wording is objectively capable of falling within the scope left by “general conformity”. The local plan’s explanatory text forms part of the development plan. Where an objection to a proposed plan modification is not considered, the court may quash the affected part of the plan. The planning process must then begin afresh for the quashed part.

The claimants challenged Stevenage Borough Council’s adoption of its District Plan Second Review under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Ground 1 alleged that Policy H2, allocating land at Stevenage West for approximately 1,000 dwellings but safeguarding it pending reconsideration of its strategic justification, was not in general conformity with the Hertfordshire Structure Plan. Ground 2 concerned the failure to consider an objection to the proposed Green Belt boundary near Norton Green.

The court therefore considered the meaning of “general conformity”, the effect of qualifications in a local plan and its explanatory text, and the appropriate relief for failure to consider a duly made objection.

1. Ground 1 dismissed. The statutory requirement for general conformity is a matter of legal interpretation and objective application. It does not mean that a local plan must merely be “in character” with the structure plan. The word “general” introduces flexibility, but the local plan cannot make an important adjustment to the structure plan’s main features or strategic proposals.

2. The correct approach is to ask whether the local plan’s actual words are objectively capable of falling within the scope left open by “general conformity”. The local planning authority must balance the need to conform with the need for the plan to explain relevant changes in circumstances and provide realistic guidance for local planning decisions.

3. A local plan may reproduce a structure plan allocation while qualifying it as to justification or timing, provided the qualification still contemplates that the strategic purpose may be achieved during the plan period. A qualification which makes it clear that implementation is unlikely to occur during that period would not conform. Policy H2, read with its explanatory material and the Local Plan Inspector’s recommendations, fell within the permissible scope.

4. The explanatory text was part of the local plan and therefore part of the development plan for the purposes of section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

5. Ground 2 succeeded. The claimants’ objection to the proposed Green Belt boundary was required to be considered, but the Inspector’s report contained no indication that it had been addressed. This was an error of law. Under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, quashing the affected part did not restore the land automatically to its former Green Belt status. The Council had to commence fresh proposals for the quashed part. The court quashed the Proposals Map insofar as it identified the detailed Green Belt boundary south of Stevenage West so as to include Norton Green.

First-instance judicial review claim. No appeal history is stated in the judgment.