Lochailort Investments Ltd, R (on the application of) v Norton ST Philip Parish Council

In a challenge to a neighbourhood plan, the court must review legality rather than planning merits. The local planning authority may rely on an independent Examiner’s report where the Examiner has addressed the statutory basic conditions and reached conclusions supported by sufficient evidence.

Local Green Space designation is governed by the criteria in paragraphs 99 and 100 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The policy does not impose a judicially created test of exceptionality, a cap on designations, or the stringent test applicable to Green Belt boundary changes. Paragraph 100(b) gives examples of matters capable of demonstrating special local significance; the list is not exhaustive. Policies managing development in Local Green Space must be interpreted consistently with Green Belt policy, but may reflect the smaller scale and particular purposes of such spaces.

The claimant, a property developer, sought judicial review under section 61N(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 of Mendip District Council’s decision to accept modifications to the Norton St Philip Neighbourhood Plan and proceed to a referendum.

The challenge concerned the designation of Fortescue Fields South and Fortescue Fields West as Local Green Spaces. The claimant alleged inadequate regard to national policy, misunderstanding of strategic housing policies, irrational assessment of the evidence, inadequate reasons, and inconsistency between the plan’s Local Green Space policy and Green Belt policy.

The central issues were the scope of the Examiner’s and local planning authority’s statutory functions, the applicable Local Green Space criteria, the significance of later criticism by an Inspector examining the emerging Local Plan, and the proper interpretation of the plan’s development-management policy.

1. Claim dismissed. A challenge under section 61N(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is confined to public law grounds. The court must not substitute its planning judgment for that of the Examiner or local planning authority.
2. Under paragraph 12 of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the authority must consider the Examiner’s recommendations and reasons, and satisfy itself that the draft plan meets the basic conditions and other statutory requirements. It is not required to duplicate the Examiner’s detailed examination of evidence and planning merits.
3. The Examiner had properly addressed the relevant statutory provisions, national policy and guidance. Her conclusions on housing and Local Green Space were supported by sufficient evidence and were matters of planning judgment. The later Inspector’s criticism of the authority’s wider Local Green Space methodology post-dated the Examiner’s report and the authority’s decision, concerned a different statutory examination, and did not invalidate either decision.
4. The criteria in paragraphs 99 and 100 of the National Planning Policy Framework are the applicable criteria for Local Green Space designation. The court declined to add a judicially created “high bar” or “very high level” test. Paragraph 100(b)’s examples of beauty, historic significance, recreation, tranquillity and wildlife are non-exhaustive. The Examiner was entitled to find that the sites were close to the community, local in character, not an extensive tract, demonstrably special and of particular local significance.
5. The requirement that designation be capable of enduring beyond the plan period had not been overlooked. The Examiner could be presumed to know and apply the relevant policy, and the criterion was plainly satisfied on the evidence.
6. The plan’s policy permitting development only where it enhanced the use and reasons for designation was sufficiently broad to be interpreted consistently with Green Belt policy. Development connected with agriculture, community use, recreation or sport could potentially satisfy the policy, although housing development on the disputed sites was unlikely to do so.
7. The Examiner’s reasons met the applicable standard. Reasons need address the principal important controversial issues, but need not respond to every representation. The claimant suffered no substantial prejudice.

First-instance judicial review. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.