Andrew McEvoy & Anor v Warwickshire County Council

Land may be blighted land under paragraph 1A of Schedule 13 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 where it is identified for relevant public functions in a development plan document. The document need not allocate the land as a development site. A local development document may identify land through supporting transport evidence, plans and mapped infrastructure proposals. Conceptual status, the absence of a final alignment, uncertainty about the delivering public body and unresolved funding do not prevent land from being identified. The essential questions are whether the land is identified for relevant public functions, whether the relied-on document is a local development document and whether it is specified as a development plan document in the local development scheme.

The claimants, owners of Green Acres, served a blight notice under section 150 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, requiring Warwickshire County Council to purchase their freehold interest. The Council served a counter-notice under section 151(4)(a), among other grounds, contending that no part of the property comprised blighted land.

The claimants relied on transport and local-plan documents showing the proposed A5 Dordon-to-Grendon bypass passing through their property. The preliminary issue was whether those documents identified the land for relevant public functions under paragraph 1A of Schedule 13.

1. The Council’s objection under section 151(4)(a) failed. The Tribunal found that the whole or part of the property was comprised in blighted land under paragraph 1A of Schedule 13 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Further directions would be issued for the remaining grounds of objection.
2. Paragraph 1A applied notwithstanding that the alleged blight arose from proposed highway works. Paragraph 13 expressly excludes land dealt with under paragraph 1A, so the claimants were entitled to rely on paragraph 1A.
3. The Tribunal identified three questions: whether the land was identified for relevant public functions; whether the relied-on documents were local development documents; and, if so, whether they were specified as development plan documents in the local development scheme.
4. The mapped proposals consistently showed the claimants’ land on the alignment of the proposed A5 bypass. The scheme was for relevant public functions. The October 2017 Strategic Transport Assessment was a local development document under regulation 5(1)(a)(i) of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.
5. The North Warwickshire Local Plan had been submitted for independent examination. The examination documents, including the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, the Strategic Transport Assessment and a later written statement, formed part of the development plan documentation and identified the bypass as critical infrastructure supporting the Local Plan.
6. The fact that the scheme remained conceptual, that its final alignment had not been fixed, that responsibility for delivery had not been allocated and that funding remained subject to finalisation did not alter the factual conclusion that the land had been identified in development plan documents.

This was a preliminary determination by the Upper Tribunal on a notice of reference. The claimants referred the Council’s counter-notice to the Tribunal on 17 February 2020. No lower-court judgment or appeal is stated.