Bond, R (on the application of) v Vale of White Horse District Council

An adopted policies map is a local development document, not a development plan document or part of the local plan. Its function is to illustrate geographically the application of adopted planning policies. Where the map contains an administrative error and the underlying policy requires no amendment, a local planning authority may correct the map by resolution under sections 23 and 26 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The statutory procedure for amending a local plan is unnecessary.

A clear and unqualified public representation may create a substantive legitimate expectation. The authority may nevertheless depart from it where an overriding public interest justifies the departure and the decision is proportionate. Ensuring that an adopted policies map accurately records binding planning policy was such an interest.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Council’s resolution of 13 February 2019 to correct the adopted policies map for the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1. The map mistakenly showed land at North Hinksey outside the Green Belt, although the examining Inspector had rejected its release and the adopted policy and supporting text retained it within the Green Belt.

The claimant argued that the Council could alter the map only through the statutory process for modifying a local plan. He also relied on representations made during the examination of Local Plan Part 2, which he said created a legitimate expectation that the correction would be withdrawn. The central issues were whether the correction was lawfully made and whether departing from the representations was unfair or disproportionate.

1. Claim dismissed. The adopted policies map had been incorrectly left unchanged after the Inspector’s recommendations. The evidence displaced any presumption that the map was correct.
2. An adopted policies map is an LDD but not a DPD and does not form part of the local plan. Under regulation 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, it illustrates geographically the application of policies in the adopted development plan. The policy text and supporting text, rather than the map itself, contained the substantive planning policy.
3. The Council could correct the map under sections 23(1), 23(5) and 26(1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Because the local plan policy did not require amendment, the Council was not required to undertake the statutory process for amending a local plan or submit a new submission policies map.
4. Section 113(2) did not prevent the correction. It restricted legal challenges to documents within section 113(1), such as a DPD, and did not apply to an adopted policies map.
5. The Council’s note to the Part 2 Inspector contained clear representations that it would withdraw the correction and revert the map to its December 2016 form. Those representations created a substantive legitimate expectation.
6. Nevertheless, the Council was entitled to resile from them. The map had to accurately illustrate the adopted Green Belt policy, and the Inspector’s recommendations were binding on the Council. Accuracy of published planning documents and good administration supplied an overriding public interest. The claimant had been given an opportunity to make representations, and the departure was proportionate and lawful.