Larkfleet Homes Ltd, R (on the application of) v Rutland County Council & Anor

A neighbourhood development plan may allocate precise sites for development, provided that it remains consistent with the strategic policies of the wider development plan. The statutory scheme does not reserve all site allocation to local development documents prepared by the local planning authority.

For SEA screening, the decision-maker must consider whether the plan is likely to have significant environmental effects, including both positive and negative effects. The assessment is read as a whole. Imperfect drafting does not invalidate the decision where the report, viewed in context, demonstrates that the statutory question was addressed.

The claimant, a house-building company, challenged Rutland County Council’s decision to allow the Uppingham Neighbourhood Development Plan to proceed to referendum. The plan allocated three sites for housing and supported development consistent with the council’s Core Strategy.

The claim alleged that neighbourhood plans could not allocate development sites, that the plan did not determine the use of a small area at local level for the purposes of SEA screening, and that the screening report failed to consider significant positive environmental effects.

1. Site allocation. The claim that a neighbourhood development plan could not allocate precise sites was rejected. Section 38A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 defines a neighbourhood development plan broadly as a plan setting out policies concerning the development and use of land. The statutory restrictions in sections 38B and 61J–61K did not exclude ordinary site allocation.
2. Regulation 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 should be read consistently with the purpose of neighbourhood planning. Regulation 5(1)(a)(ii) concerns the strategic allocation of sites in local development documents. Regulation 5(2)(b), although badly drafted, did not prevent a neighbourhood plan from allocating particular sites within the strategic framework. The plan remained limited by the Core Strategy’s location, housing and sustainability requirements.
3. Small area screening. The screening report expressly considered whether the plan determined the use of a small area at local level. The answer was affirmative because the plan identified specific uses for sites within the neighbourhood area. That conclusion was therefore unassailable.
4. Environmental effects. Regulation 9 of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, read with Schedule 2 paragraph 6, required consideration of likely significant effects, including temporary and permanent, positive and negative effects. Although the report concentrated on negative effects and used language that was unsatisfactory, its overall contents showed that the author understood the statutory obligation and had considered whether significant environmental effects existed.
5. The claim was dismissed. No separate relief or remittal was ordered.