Ashdown Forest Economic Development LLP v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Ors

A planning authority has a substantial area of evaluative judgment when identifying reasonable alternatives for strategic environmental assessment. The SEA Directive does not require full assessment of options which, for proper planning reasons, are not realistically viable candidates for adoption. It is sufficient to give an outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives assessed, provided the reasons enable informed public participation and have not been replaced by wholly new reasons.

A competent authority may rely on screening evidence under the Habitats Regulations to conclude that an appropriate assessment is unnecessary. A precautionary restriction on development may be rationally adopted where available evidence indicates environmental risk, even though further investigation might later permit greater development. The claim challenging the Core Strategy was dismissed.

The claimant, an organisation representing landowners, challenged the adoption by Wealden District Council and the South Downs National Park Authority of the Wealden District Core Strategy Local Plan. The challenge was brought under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

The claimant challenged the reduced housing requirement, the selection of strategic housing alternatives, the screening decision under the Habitats Regulations and the adoption of a 7 km Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace zone around Ashdown Forest. The central issues were whether the Inspector’s evaluative conclusions were irrational and whether the environmental assessment and habitats screening were legally adequate.

1. Disposition. All four grounds were dismissed. The court held that the Inspector and the planning authority had acted rationally and lawfully in approving a Core Strategy providing for 9,440 homes rather than the higher figure sought by the claimant.
2. Ground One. The Inspector’s assessment of soundness and general conformity involved evaluative planning judgments reviewable on ordinary Wednesbury principles. He was entitled to rely on evidence of existing nitrogen deposition, the limited headroom below the 1,000 annual average daily traffic threshold, the precautionary principle and the need for coordinated work with neighbouring authorities. Further investigation might have shown that more housing could be accommodated, but that possibility was speculative and did not require adoption of a higher figure or delay in adopting the Strategy.
3. Ground Two. Under Article 5 of the SEA Directive and regulation 12 of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, the authority had discretion to identify reasonable alternatives through an iterative planning process. It could reject options at an early stage for proper planning reasons, provided those reasons remained valid and were explained sufficiently. The duty required an outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with, not a fully reasoned appellate-style decision. The authority had rationally selected Scenario C and explained why Scenarios A and B were not taken forward.
4. The SEA Directive required equal examination of alternatives regarded as reasonable alternatives, but did not require an artificial exercise involving options that were clearly not viable candidates for adoption. The authority could amplify outline reasons in litigation, provided it did not rely on wholly new reasons.
5. Ground Three. The Habitats Regulations Assessment had properly screened the Core Strategy and concluded that it was not likely to have a significant effect on Ashdown Forest. Regulation 61(1)(a) therefore did not require a detailed appropriate assessment.
6. Ground Four. The environmental report, incorporating the Habitats Regulations Assessment, gave a reasoned evidential basis for the 7 km SANG zone. It considered the relevant 5 km precedent, the evidence on visitor travel distances and a wider 15 km zone. The authority was entitled to adopt the solution recommended by Natural England and its expert advisers without pursuing speculative or artificial alternatives.
7. No question of remedy arose because none of the grounds succeeded.