Gladman Developments Ltd, R (on the application of) v Aylesbury Vale District Council & Ors

A neighbourhood development plan may allocate housing land and establish a settlement boundary even where no development plan document contains strategic housing policies. The conformity condition requires conformity with strategic policies that exist; it does not prohibit neighbourhood policies on subjects for which no such policies have yet been adopted. A plan may contribute to sustainable development and be appropriate having regard to national guidance despite the possibility of later strategic housing policies requiring further growth. An examiner must have regard to relevant planning guidance, assess whether the environmental report contains reasonably required information and alternatives, and give intelligible reasons addressing the principal issues.

The claimant developer challenged the Council’s decision to make the Winslow Neighbourhood Plan. The plan established a settlement boundary and allocated land for approximately 455 dwellings, while the local planning authority had no adopted development plan document containing current strategic housing policies.

The claimant argued that the plan failed the statutory basic conditions, that the examiner had failed to have regard to planning guidance concerning site allocation, that the strategic environmental assessment was inadequate, and that the examiner’s reasons were insufficient. The central issue was whether the plan was lawful despite the absence of an up-to-date strategic housing plan.

1. Judicial review dismissed. The Council was entitled to make the Neighbourhood Plan after the referendum. The plan was lawful.
2. A neighbourhood development plan may contain policies concerning the use and development of land for housing, including the location and allocation of dwellings, even where no development plan document contains strategic housing policies. Paragraph 8(2)(e) of Schedule 4B required conformity with strategic policies contained in development plan documents, if such policies existed; it did not impose a prohibition until strategic housing policies were adopted.
3. The examiner was entitled to find that the plan contributed to sustainable development under paragraph 8(2)(d) and was appropriate having regard to national policies and guidance under paragraph 8(2)(a). The possibility that a later development plan document might require further housing did not invalidate the neighbourhood plan. Later inconsistent strategic policies would prevail under section 38(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and an out-of-date neighbourhood policy could be a material consideration supporting departure from it.
4. The examiner had regard to the relevant Planning Practice Guidance. He considered the site assessment, consultation, deliverability and criticisms of the allocation process. He was entitled to conclude that the site allocations satisfied the relevant basic condition.
5. The strategic environmental assessment complied with EU obligations. The report contained information reasonably required having regard to the plan’s content and level of detail, considered reasonable alternatives including alternative settlement-boundary directions, and was subject to consultation. The examiner was entitled to accept it despite criticism that greater detail could have been provided.
6. The examiner gave adequate and intelligible reasons. He addressed the principal legal and factual issues, including conformity, sustainable development, site assessment and environmental assessment. Permission was granted on the arguable grounds, but the substantive claim was dismissed.

First-instance judicial review. The judgment records that Stewart J refused an interim injunction on 22 July 2014, allowing the referendum to proceed. The Council subsequently made the Neighbourhood Plan after the favourable referendum.