Kebbell Developments Ltd, R (on the application of) v Leeds City Council & Anor

In deciding whether a neighbourhood plan may proceed to referendum, the local planning authority must determine whether it is satisfied that the statutory basic conditions are met. If so satisfied, it must submit the plan to a referendum.

General conformity is assessed by comparing the neighbourhood plan as a whole with the strategic policies of the local plan as a whole. Tension between individual policies or supporting passages does not necessarily establish general disconformity. Supporting text may assist interpretation but does not have the force of policy. A neighbourhood plan may express local opposition to possible development, provided it does not itself determine or pre-empt the strategic allocation of land.

The claimant developer challenged Leeds City Council’s decision to submit the Linton Neighbourhood Plan to a local referendum. The plan included text describing the Ridge, a protected area of search identified in the Leeds Local Plan as a possible source of longer-term housing land, and retained a project to examine returning the land to the Green Belt or agricultural use.

The claimant argued that the retained text conflicted with the Leeds Local Plan, breached the statutory basic conditions and resulted from unlawful departure from the examiner’s recommendations. The central issue was whether the council could lawfully be satisfied that the neighbourhood plan was appropriate having regard to national policy and in general conformity with the strategic policies of the local plan.

1. The claim was dismissed. The council’s decision to submit the Linton Neighbourhood Plan to referendum and the referendum result stood.
2. Under paragraph 12(4) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the question whether the authority is satisfied that the basic conditions are met is for the authority, not the court. Once satisfied, the authority is obliged to submit the plan to referendum.
3. The meaning of “general conformity” is a question of law for the court, but its application is a matter of planning judgment subject to ordinary public law review. The comparison must be between the neighbourhood plan as a whole and the strategic policies of the local plan as a whole. A conflict or tension between one neighbourhood-plan policy and one element of the local plan is not enough.
4. The neighbourhood plan was not required to be silent about the Ridge merely because the site was identified as a possible source of future housing land. The inserted description acknowledged its protected-area-of-search status and did not itself preclude later housing development. The reference to returning the land to the Green Belt appeared only as a project or aspiration, not as a planning policy or supporting text with operative force.
5. The examiner’s recommendations did not restrict the council to the precise modifications proposed. The council expressly and lawfully made an additional modification. Although its reasons for inserting the text were inadequate under regulation 18(2) of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012, that deficiency was minor and did not justify quashing the decision or referendum.