Crownhall Estates Ltd, R (on the application of) v Chichester District Council & Ors

The examination of a neighbourhood plan is concerned with the statutory “basic conditions”, not the broader soundness examination applicable to a local plan. A qualifying body preparing a neighbourhood plan is not required to meet the full objectively assessed housing need for the wider district. The relevant question is whether making the neighbourhood plan is appropriate having regard to national policy and whether it contributes to sustainable development. The examiner and local planning authority must give reasons within the statutory scope of the examination, but need not address every matter raised in representations. Site-selection errors will not justify quashing a plan where the claimant’s case did not depend on the alleged ranking and the decision was supported by freestanding reasons.

The claimant challenged decisions by Chichester District Council concerning the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan. The plan allocated at least 60 dwellings on two sites but did not allocate the claimant’s promoted site. The challenges concerned the interpretation of national planning policy, the adequacy of reasons, the treatment of windfall sites, and alleged errors in the site-scoring exercise.

The neighbourhood plan had been examined following an earlier quashing of a referendum process on environmental-assessment grounds. After a fresh examination and referendum, the Council made the plan. The consolidated judicial review claims challenged the decision to hold the referendum and the subsequent making of the plan.

1. All grounds dismissed. The applications for judicial review in CO/1812/2015 and CO/2669/2015 were dismissed.
2. The examination of a neighbourhood plan differs from the examination of a local plan. It does not require consideration of whether the plan is “sound”, justified by proportionate evidence, or based on a strategy meeting objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements.
3. The basic condition in paragraph 8(2)(a) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires an evaluative judgment whether it is appropriate to make the plan having regard to national policies and guidance. The basic condition does not impose the full housing-supply requirements applicable to local planning authorities preparing local plans.
4. The objectively assessed housing need relied on by the claimant was a district-wide figure which had not been disaggregated to Loxwood or the relevant sub-area. The examiner was entitled to treat the indicative housing figure in the emerging local plan as the best guidance for Loxwood, and to conclude that no additional allocation was necessary.
5. The statutory duty to give reasons is shaped by the statutory limits of the neighbourhood-plan examination. The examiner and Council gave adequate and intelligible reasons addressing the claimant’s principal case, applying the principles in South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953.
6. The local plan did not positively support larger windfall sites. It recognised that such sites might receive permission and explained how they would affect monitoring of housing provision. The neighbourhood plan did not impose a restriction preventing larger windfall sites within the settlement boundary. The interpretation of the plan had to be undertaken in context, consistently with Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012] PTSR 983.
7. The alleged errors in the site-scoring exercise did not vitiate the decisions. The claimant had sought an additional allocation, not the displacement of an allocated site. In any event, the examiner relied on independent considerations, including local support for the allocated sites, their contribution to sustainable development, and the absence of a need for the claimant’s site to be allocated.
8. The court observed that the more investigative “competition” between rival sites associated with local-plan soundness examinations may fall outside the usual scope of a neighbourhood-plan examination. If relief had been necessary, it would also have been refused under the Simplex approach and section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, because the outcome would not have been substantially different.

This was a first-instance judicial review. An earlier claim concerning the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan resulted in a consent order quashing the decision to hold a referendum and the referendum itself on environmental-assessment grounds. The present consolidated claims challenged the later referendum decision and the Council’s decision to make the plan.