Heard v Broadland District Council & Ors

Strategic environmental assessment must provide a reasoned and publicly accessible account of the reasonable alternatives considered, including an outline of why those alternatives were selected for examination. Alternatives may be narrowed as plan-making progresses, but the reasons for each selection must remain ascertainable. Reasonable alternatives must be assessed on a comparable basis, even though the preferred option may warrant greater detail.

Where a development plan relies on infrastructure promoted by another public authority, that infrastructure may form part of the baseline for assessing the plan. Reliance on, support for, or safeguarding of the infrastructure does not necessarily make it a proposal of the plan requiring separate assessment.

Mr Heard challenged the adoption by Broadland District Council, South Norfolk District Council and Norwich City Council of their Joint Core Strategy under Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The strategy provided for major growth in the North East Growth Triangle and relied significantly on the proposed Northern Distributor Road.

The challenge alleged that the strategic environmental assessment failed to explain the selection of reasonable alternatives and failed to assess the Northern Distributor Road or alternatives to it. The court also considered whether relief should be withheld because of substantial compliance or absence of prejudice.

1. Ground 1 succeeded. The environmental assessment did not give the outline reasons for selecting the alternatives examined at the successive stages of plan preparation. In particular, it did not explain why every identified combination involved development in the North East Growth Triangle, despite uncertainty concerning the Northern Distributor Road.
2. The process permitted options to be narrowed as the plan progressed. It was unnecessary to keep every option open for equally detailed examination at every stage. However, the reasons for selecting the options carried forward had to be stated, whether in the final assessment or by clear cross-reference to earlier publicly available material. The material had to be organised so that the public did not face a paper chase. The court followed the approach in Save Historic Newmarket Ltd v Forest Heath District Council [2011] EWHC 606 (Admin).
3. The preferred option and the reasonable alternatives selected for examination had to be assessed on a comparable basis. The September 2009 assessment did not do so. The failure to explain why the preferred option was selected was also, in the circumstances, a failure to explain why other alternatives were not selected for further or comparable assessment. The court treated this as a breach of the Directive and Regulations, not substantial compliance.
4. Ground 2 failed. The Northern Distributor Road was within the statutory responsibility of the highway authority, not the defendants. Its promotion, support and safeguarding in the Joint Core Strategy did not convert it into a proposal of that plan. It was therefore permissible to treat the road as part of the baseline against which the environmental effects of the growth strategy were assessed. Its environmental effects had also been considered in the NATS and Local Transport Plan, and the Joint Core Strategy was not required to remedy any alleged deficiencies in those earlier assessments.
5. The court declined to withhold relief. The precise form of relief under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as amended, was left for further submissions.