Matthews, R (on the application of) v Tamworth Borough Council

A local planning authority may depart from a planning inspector’s recommendation, but it must construe the recommendation correctly, consider all materially relevant matters, give clear and cogent reasons, and comply with the statutory requirement of general conformity with the structure plan. A radical reduction in planned employment land cannot be justified by an inspector’s observation supporting only a moderate shortfall. Where a proposed modification raises a new issue not independently examined at the original inquiry, the authority must fairly and rationally decide whether a further inquiry is required. It must balance the objector’s interests against delay and the consequences for the plan.

The claimant challenged the adoption of part of the Tamworth Local Plan under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Council had deleted the Bonehill Road Extension and Anker Valley employment allocations after a local plan inquiry, although the inspector had recommended retaining Bonehill as a high-quality site offering range and choice.

The challenge concerned the legality of the deletion and the Council’s refusal to hold a further inquiry into the proposed modification. The central issues were whether the Council had misunderstood the inspector’s report, failed to consider relevant matters, relied on inadequate reasons, acted inconsistently with the Structure Plan, and approached the further-inquiry decision fairly.

1. The claim succeeded. Policies EMP1 and EMP2, together with the relevant Proposals Map elements, were quashed.
2. The inspector’s analysis supported, at most, a moderate shortfall below the Structure Plan requirement. The Council had treated that analysis as justification for reducing employment land provision to about half the requirement. That was a radical change and misconstrued the inspector’s report. The inspector had positively recommended retaining Bonehill because it was a high-quality site with greater potential than most sites to attract nationally or internationally mobile businesses.
3. The Council failed to take that positive attribute into account. It also relied on an alleged infrastructure and timing difficulty which was unsupported by evidence. Those failures were unlawful.
4. Under section 36(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, read with Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Local Plan had to be in general conformity with the Structure Plan. The express admission in policy EMP1 that the provision constituted a significant shortfall meant that the Council had not established general conformity.
5. There was no automatic duty to hold a further inquiry. However, the decision required a fair and balanced assessment of whether the new issue had received independent scrutiny, the applicable planning guidance, the practical benefit of a further inquiry, delay and the desirability of an up-to-date plan, and fairness to the objector and other parties. The principles summarised in Drextine Holdings Ltd v Cherwell District Council [1998] JPL 361 were applied. The enhanced obligation to deal thoroughly, conscientiously and fairly with objections where the authority was both proposer and judge, identified in Stirk v Bridgenorth District Council [1997] 73 P&CR 439, was also engaged.
6. The proposed deletion on grounds of lack of need had not been examined at the original inquiry. The Council’s prior conclusion that objections would not justify a further inquiry, made before the objections were known, and its failure to balance unfairness to the claimant against delay, showed a closed-minded, inadequately reasoned and unfair approach.
7. The court declined to exercise its discretion not to quash. The possible planning difficulties caused by removing the policies did not outweigh the Council’s several unlawful errors.