St Albans City And District Council, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

The statutory duty to co-operate on strategic cross-boundary planning matters remains active and ongoing even where authorities have reached fundamental disagreement. A local planning authority cannot treat an apparent impasse as ending the duty. Co-operation in one subject, such as employment, does not have to be balanced against its absence in another; compliance is an overall judgment on the statutory duty.

An inspector need not finally determine the correct housing market area when examining compliance with the duty. The court reviews the inspector’s planning judgment only for irrationality and unlawfulness.

The claimant local planning authority sought judicial review of a planning inspector’s decision that it had failed to comply with the duty to co-operate under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 when preparing its strategic local plan.

The dispute concerned co-operation with neighbouring authorities, particularly the definition of the relevant housing market area, housing land east of Hemel Hempstead, and employment-related co-operation concerning the Maylands growth corridor. The inspector concluded that engagement had not been constructive, active, ongoing or collaborative and that the plan was consequently at risk of being unsound.

The central issues were whether disagreement created an impasse ending the duty, whether co-operation on employment could cure deficiencies concerning housing, and whether the inspector had adequately identified and assessed strategic matters.

1. The claim was dismissed. The inspector had lawfully concluded that the claimant had not complied with the duty to co-operate under section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The duty is active and ongoing. Fundamental disagreement about the appropriate housing market area does not terminate it, particularly where the subject involves judgments combining art and science. The inspector was entitled to conclude that further engagement remained required, even though agreement was not compulsory. This approach was consistent with R (on the application of Central Bedfordshire Council) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 2167 (Admin).
3. The inspector was not required, at the initial hearing concerned with co-operation, to decide which housing market area was correct. That issue principally concerned the soundness of the plan. He was entitled to conclude that the claimant had not adequately considered helping to meet neighbouring authorities’ development needs without determining the ultimate merits of the housing evidence.
4. The inspector was entitled to reach an overall judgment on compliance. The statute did not require him to balance effective co-operation on employment, including the enterprise zone and Maylands, against inadequate co-operation on housing. Balancing was not the statutory test. The principles in Zurich Assurance Ltd v Winchester City Council [2014] EWHC 758 (Admin) and Trustees of the Barker Mill Estates v Test Valley Borough Council [2016] EWHC 3028 (Admin) supported that approach.
5. The inspector was not legally required to identify the strategic issues himself. It was for the local planning authority to identify strategic matters and explain how co-operation would maximise effectiveness. The claimant had failed to do so adequately.
6. The inspector’s decision letter was to be read fairly and in a straightforward manner. It showed that he understood the disagreement over the housing market area and gave adequate reasons for his conclusion. The standards discussed in Clarke Homes v Secretary of State for the Environment (1993) 66 P & CR 263, Seddon Properties v Secretary of State for the Environment (1981) 42 P & CR 26 and R v Mendip District Council ex parte Fabre (2000) 80 P & CR were satisfied.

The judgment concerned a first-instance judicial review of a planning inspector’s decision dated 28 November 2016. No appeal or earlier court judgment in the same proceedings was stated.