George Wimpey UK Ltd v Tewkesbury Borough Council

A local planning authority must have regard to relevant national and regional planning policy when allocating housing sites. A judgment that sites can be developed within the plan period is subject to review only on ordinary Wednesbury grounds, but the authority must address a specific and material objection to deliverability. Planning reasons must be proper, intelligible and adequate. Their adequacy depends on the issues raised, and a deficiency will justify quashing only where the applicant has suffered substantial prejudice. An authority changing its response to an inspector’s recommendation must address the inspector’s principal concerns. A further local plan inquiry is discretionary and requires a fair balance of the relevant considerations.

The claimant sought orders under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 quashing parts of the defendant’s adopted Local Plan allocating the M&G Sports Ground and Shurdington sites for housing. It also sought judicial review and declaratory relief concerning the exclusion of Homelands Farm and the refusal to reopen the local plan inquiry.

The claimant argued that the two allocated sites could not realistically be developed during the remaining plan period, that inadequate reasons had been given, that the defendant had failed properly to address the inspector’s recommendations, and that a further inquiry was required.

1. Ground 1 allowed. The allocation of the M&G Sports Ground and Shurdington sites was unlawful. The defendant had to exercise planning judgment as to whether the sites could be developed within the relevant period. That judgment was reviewable only if irrational or unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense.
2. By the time of the proposed third modifications, the claimant had raised the deliverability issue directly. The defendant’s response merely repeated that phased allocations were lawful and that the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy would not be prejudiced. It did not address whether the two allocations could in fact be implemented between 2007 and 2011. In the circumstances, the judgment was unreasonable or irrational and failed to have regard to paragraph 34 of PPG3 and the draft PPS3 guidance.
3. The defendant also failed to give adequate reasons. Applying Save Britain’s Heritage v Number One Poultry Ltd [1991] 1 WLR 153, the reasons had to be proper, intelligible and adequate. The failure to address the central objection substantially prejudiced the claimant.
4. Ground 2 failed. Applying Miller v Wycombe District Council (1997) JPL 951, the defendant was required to consider the inspector’s report and explain any departure from its principal findings. It had done so in relation to the Shurdington site, notwithstanding that it had not answered every individual point.
5. Ground 3 failed on the merits. The reasons for excluding Homelands Farm were proper, intelligible and adequate. The defendant was entitled to attach some weight to the examination panel’s views, even after abandonment of the relevant structure plan review. Any error in considering that material could not realistically have affected the result.
6. Ground 4 failed. The defendant had considered the relevant factors governing a further inquiry, identified in Drexfine Holdings Ltd v Cherwell District Council (1998) JPL 361. Permission for judicial review was refused.

A quashing order was made under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of the two housing allocations. The judicial review claim was dismissed.

First instance decision. The judgment records no appeal or earlier decision in the same proceedings.