Daws Hill Neighbourhood Forum & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s 61G(5), a local planning authority has a broad discretion to decide whether the area proposed for neighbourhood planning is appropriate. The authority may designate only part of the area applied for. The decision must be assessed against the specific factual and policy matrix existing when it is made. Relevant considerations may include strategic significance, wider impacts, referendum scope, planning progress, resources, consultation and the risk that a neighbourhood plan will be overtaken by events. The requirement to have regard to area character when designating a neighbourhood forum under s 61F(7) does not transfer to the designation of a neighbourhood area under s 61G.

Daws Hill Neighbourhood Forum and two members challenged Wycombe District Council’s decision to designate a neighbourhood area smaller than the area applied for. The excluded area contained the RAF Daws Hill and Handy Cross Sports Centre strategic development sites.

The claim alleged that the Council had frustrated the purpose of the neighbourhood-planning provisions, failed to consider the character of the locality and acted irrationally. The central issue was whether the Council had lawfully exercised its discretion under s 61G(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

1. The claim was dismissed. The Council had lawfully designated the neighbourhood area while excluding the two strategic sites.
2. Section 61G(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 gives a local planning authority a broad discretion to determine whether the area specified in an application is appropriate. The exercise of that discretion depends on the particular factual and policy matrix existing at the time of the decision.
3. The Council was entitled to consider the sites’ strategic significance, wider transport, housing and economic-development implications, and the possible mismatch between the proposed forum and the wider community affected by development. The prospect of a referendum extending beyond the proposed neighbourhood area reinforced that concern.
4. The Council was also entitled to consider whether a neighbourhood plan would serve a useful purpose. The planning process for both sites was advanced, substantial consultation had occurred, and the plan-making process could take up to 21 months. It was rational to conclude that development might commence, or planning decisions might be substantially advanced, before a neighbourhood plan was completed.
5. The requirement in s 61F(7) to have regard to specified matters, including the character of the area, applies to designation of a neighbourhood forum. It does not impose the same requirement when determining the appropriate neighbourhood area under s 61G.

None of the grounds of challenge was made out.