Mawle, R (on the application of) v West Oxfordshire District Council

A local planning authority is not bound to accept a local plan inspector’s recommendations. It must consider them fairly, give adequate reasons for departing from them, and comply with the applicable statutory procedure. Reasons are assessed in context and need address the principal controversial issues without excessive legalism. The court will not substitute its view on planning merits for that of the authority. An authority may take account of the highway authority’s views without unlawfully abdicating its responsibility, provided it has not predetermined the planning or environmental issue. The authority may also retain policy flexibility where it gives a rational explanation for doing so.

The claimants, trustees of landowners forming the East Witney Land Consortium, challenged parts of the adopted West Oxfordshire Local Plan under section 287(2)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. They challenged the safeguarding of the Cogges Link Road and the allocation of the North Curbridge Development Area.

The Local Plan Inspector had recommended safeguarding the road route without retaining it as a specific proposal, and retaining North Curbridge only as a reserve site subject to review and later development. The council accepted those recommendations in part but retained greater flexibility. The central issue was whether the council had lawfully considered and explained its departures from the Inspector’s recommendations.

1. Application refused. The claimants’ challenge to the adopted Plan failed. The claimants were ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
2. Under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the court reviews legality and procedural compliance. It does not determine the merits of competing planning strategies. The authority’s reasons must be intelligible and adequate, but they must be read straightforwardly in their context and need address the principal important controversial issues rather than every consideration.
3. The council was not bound to follow the Local Plan Inspector’s recommendations. In relation to the Cogges Link Road, it accepted the principal recommendation by removing the road from the Plan’s specific proposals and retaining only route safeguarding. Its reasons for not adopting the Inspector’s suggested review through the Local Development Framework, and for not accepting the claimants’ further modifications, were adequate.
4. The council did not unlawfully abdicate responsibility by considering Oxfordshire County Council’s views as highway authority. The evidence did not show that either authority had predetermined the outcome of the environmental assessment or the merits of the road scheme. The council was entitled to rely on other means of review and was not legally required to use the particular review mechanism suggested by the Inspector.
5. In relation to North Curbridge, the council accepted the substance of the Inspector’s recommendation that housing development should not ordinarily occur before 2011, but retained flexibility in case an overriding housing need arose earlier. That was a policy judgment for the council, supported by clear and legally adequate reasons. The subsidiary argument concerning possible release for employment or infrastructure needs was more appropriately considered in the context of a concrete planning application and did not establish unlawfulness in adopting the Plan.
6. The court declined to give a definitive ruling on standing because the substantive challenge failed.