Ribble Industrial Estates Ltd v Burnley Borough Council

Under the statutory development-plan procedure, a local planning authority may depart from an inspector’s recommendation if it has considered the recommendation and acts on a rational basis. Where the authority fails to give the reasons required by regulation 27 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) (England) Regulations 1999, relief under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires substantial prejudice to the applicant’s interests. A further inquiry into proposed modifications is not generally required, although the absence of prior independent scrutiny, fairness, practical benefit and delay may be material. The court may refuse to quash a plan where the procedural breach caused no substantial prejudice.

The claimant, a developer holding an option over land at Shuttleworth Mead, challenged parts of Burnley’s replacement Local Plan under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It challenged the retention of the Hepworths site as employment land without the feasibility study recommended by the inspector, and the enlarged Stoneyholme allocation, which included housing and a playing field without those changes being considered at the inquiry. The central questions were whether the Council lawfully departed from the inspector’s recommendations and whether the procedural matters substantially prejudiced the claimant.

1. Hepworths. The Council was not bound by the inspector’s recommendation that a feasibility study precede confirmation of the site’s allocation. It had considered the recommendation and rationally concluded that delaying adoption of the whole Local Plan for 9–12 months outweighed the benefit of obtaining the study before adoption. The Council had also undertaken an environmental sustainability assessment and confirmed occupier support. The decision was not outside the powers conferred by Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (paras [23]–[24]).
2. The Council breached regulation 27 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) (England) Regulations 1999 because its response document did not state the reason for departing from the inspector’s recommendation. Nevertheless, the reason existed, was rational, and the claimant had no direct interest in the Hepworths site. The claimant therefore suffered no substantial prejudice within section 287(2)(b), and the challenge failed (para [25]).
3. Stoneyholme. There is no general obligation to hold a further inquiry into objections to modifications. The considerations identified in Drexfine Holdings Ltd v Cherwell District Council included prior independent scrutiny, relevant planning guidance, the practical benefit of another inquiry, delay, and fairness. The playing-field issue had already been addressed during the deposit stages, and the later inclusion of housing caused no substantial prejudice. The claimant could identify no substantive objection it would have advanced before the inspector (para [26]).
4. The application to quash the employment chapter of the Local Plan, whether wholly or in part, was dismissed (para [27]).

First-instance judicial review under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; no lower-court decision is stated in the judgment.