Dylon 2 Ltd v London Borough of Bromley

In a statutory challenge to a local plan, the court must assess whether the examining Inspector’s conclusion was reasonably open to her on the statutory tests. General conformity with a strategic plan is distinct from soundness. A textual omission, lacuna or imperfect reflection of strategic policy does not necessarily prevent general conformity. London Plan Policy 3.3D did not require a local plan to contain a specific review mechanism for revised housing figures, nor to describe post-2025 figures as indicative in policy wording. The requirement to boost housing supply had to be read with the relevant policies protecting the Green Belt and requiring sustainable development. A local plan Inspector’s reasons must address the principal controversies relevant to the recommendation, but the Inspector is not required to explain every difference from an earlier appeal decision, particularly where the two Inspectors perform materially different tasks.

Dylon 2 Ltd challenged the adoption of the Bromley Local Plan under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The challenge concerned the Inspector’s conclusion that the Plan was in general conformity with the London Plan and was sound after Main Modifications.

The claimant argued that the Plan should have contained a mechanism to respond to revised London housing targets, that the Inspector had misunderstood the obligation to boost housing supply, and that she had failed to explain her divergence from a later appeal decision concerning Bromley’s five-year housing land supply. Bromley LBC defended the Inspector’s Report. The Secretary of State did not appear. The issues were whether the Inspector had erred in law in interpreting the London Plan, applying the soundness test, or giving reasons.

1. Application dismissed. The Inspector’s conclusions were reasonably open to her and disclosed no legal error.
2. Under section 20 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the question was whether it was reasonable to conclude that the Plan was in general conformity with the strategic plan and was sound. That judgment could be unlawful for irrationality, disregard of material considerations or reliance on irrelevant considerations, but the statutory language required a challenge to establish that the Inspector’s judgment was not reasonable.
3. General conformity and soundness were separate statutory questions. A mere textual conflict, lacuna or inadequacy in reflecting a strategic policy did not necessarily prevent general conformity. If an alleged inconsistency did not affect general conformity, it could not invalidate the Plan by being recast as a soundness challenge.
4. Policy 3.3D of the London Plan governed the period after 2025, where a local plan required targets beyond the life of Table 3.1. The Table 3.1 target was to be rolled forward and exceeded until replacement by a revised London Plan. The policy did not require a specific review policy in the Bromley Plan, and the supporting text did not impose that requirement or require the post-2025 figure to be described as indicative within the policy itself. The statutory review duties, the Local Development Scheme and the Plan’s supporting text provided relevant context.
5. Policy 3.3Da had to be read with Policy 3.3E and the Framework. The obligation to augment the minimum housing target was subject to sustainable development and the protection of Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land. The Inspector was entitled to conclude that further housing would probably require Green Belt release, that exceptional circumstances were absent, and that the Plan was nevertheless sound.
6. The reasons obligation for a local plan Inspector concerned the reasons for the recommendation and the principal points of controversy. The Inspector’s inquisitorial examination was not equivalent to determining a series of planning appeals. North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment did not establish a special rule requiring detailed reasons whenever an earlier decision appeared inconsistent. The earlier decision had to be shown to concern a critical aspect of the decision under challenge. The local plan Inspector was entitled to reach her own conclusion on the evidence and task before her without analysing every view expressed by an appeal Inspector.
7. The invitation to make submissions on the later appeal decision did not establish that the decision was essential to the Inspector’s conclusions. Ground 3 was arguable but failed on the merits.