Case details
Summary
Section 61G(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 gives a local planning authority a broad discretion to decide whether a specified area is appropriate for designation. The discretion is not confined to deciding which neighbourhood area should contain each site. The words some or all permit designation of a smaller area, leaving excluded land outside any neighbourhood area.
Sections 61F and 61G operate together. Where an applicant is refused neighbourhood-forum designation, the authority may decline to determine its area application. Repeat applications cannot be used to circumvent a lawful decision, although changed circumstances may justify a fresh application. The character of the proposed area is relevant, but the specific character criterion in section 61F(7)(a)(iii) does not transfer into section 61G(5).
Factual background
The appellants challenged Wycombe District Council’s decision to designate a neighbourhood area smaller than that sought by the Daws Hill Residents’ Association. The excluded land comprised the former RAF Daws Hill site and the Handy Cross Sports Centre site.
Supperstone J dismissed the claim for judicial review: [2013] EWHC 513 (Admin). The appeal concerned the proper interpretation of section 61G(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the relationship between neighbourhood-area and neighbourhood-forum applications, the relevance of strategic planning considerations, and whether the Council had considered the character of the area.
Held
Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Sullivan delivered the leading judgment. Lord Justice Briggs and the Master of the Rolls agreed.
- Scope of the designation power. Section 61G(5) confers a broad discretion. The statutory language does not limit the authority to deciding which neighbourhood area should contain a specified site. The purpose of designation is to define the area within which a neighbourhood forum may exercise planning powers, so appropriateness may require consideration of a wide range of planning matters.
- Effect of some or all. The duty in section 61G(5) requires the authority to secure that some or all of the specified area forms part of designated or proposed neighbourhood areas. Parliament therefore contemplated that a smaller area could be designated and that part of the specified area could remain outside any neighbourhood area. The legislation does not require all of England to be covered by neighbourhood areas wherever a local community wishes.
- Interrelationship with forum designation. Sections 61F and 61G must be read together. A neighbourhood forum and its neighbourhood area are interdependent. On a combined application, the authority may refuse forum designation under section 61F(5) and then decline to determine the area application because the applicant is no longer a relevant body. This also permits refusal of repeat applications designed to circumvent an earlier lawful decision, although changed circumstances may justify a fresh application.
- Relevant considerations. The authority was entitled to consider the contemporary factual and policy matrix, including the advanced planning process, the complexity of the strategic sites, the likely timescale for a neighbourhood plan, false expectations and wasted resources. Those matters were not irrelevant and did not frustrate the purpose of the Localism Act 2011.
- Character of the area. The character of the proposed neighbourhood area is relevant to appropriateness under section 61G(5), although the character criterion in section 61F(7)(a)(iii) does not transfer directly into that subsection. On a fair reading of the Council’s documents, it had in substance considered the character of the sites and surrounding area. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The court’s approach to earlier authorities
This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.
Appellate history
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision below: [2014] EWCA Civ 228.
- High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court dismissed the judicial-review claim concerning the Council’s designation decision: [2013] EWHC 513 (Admin).
Lower court decision
Key cases cited
This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.
Cases citing this case
This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.