PARK LANE HOMES (SOUTH EAST) LIMITED (R on the application of) v ROTHER DISTRICT COUNCIL

A neighbourhood plan is voluntary and need not allocate housing sites merely because strategic policies specify a housing requirement. The basic condition in paragraph 8(2)(a) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 asks whether it is appropriate to make the plan having regard to national policy and guidance. It is not a test of soundness or strict consistency with national policy.

For paragraph 8(2)(e), the plan must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the development plan. Non-strategic local-plan policies may be departed from or superseded. A neighbourhood plan may satisfy that condition where it accepts the strategic housing need, does not prevent delivery, and preserves an operative backstop policy under which suitable housing proposals will be favourably considered.

The claimant, a housing developer, sought judicial review of Rother District Council’s decision under paragraph 12 of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to accept an independent examiner’s recommendations and proceed with a referendum on the Burwash Neighbourhood Development Plan.

The plan accepted the strategic requirement for 52 dwellings but made no housing allocations and retained the existing settlement boundaries. The claimant argued that this failed the basic conditions concerning national policy and general conformity with strategic development-plan policies. It also alleged procedural unfairness because it had not been given a further opportunity to comment on the examiner’s report or the officer’s report, and because no oral hearing was held.

1. Claim dismissed. The Council was entitled to accept the Examiner’s recommendations and proceed to referendum.
2. The examination of a neighbourhood plan is limited. The Examiner need not assess soundness, justification, objectively assessed housing need, or whether the plan is the most appropriate strategy against reasonable alternatives. The court’s role is confined to public-law review and does not extend to re-examining planning merits.
3. Basic condition (a) gives the Examiner a discretion to decide whether it is appropriate to make the plan having regard to national policies and guidance. National policy and guidance did not require the plan to allocate housing sites. The plan expressly accepted the 52-dwelling strategic requirement, supported housing delivery, and did not constrain future housing proposals. Incorporating Policy OVE1 of the DSA 2019 preserved a backstop under which suitable proposals contributing to the housing target would be favourably considered.
4. Basic condition (e) concerns general conformity with strategic policies, not conformity with every policy in the development plan. The Core Strategy policies were strategic. Policy VL1 of the Rother DLP 2006, and Policies DIM2 and OVE1 of the DSA 2019, were non-strategic. The neighbourhood plan could therefore depart from or supersede those policies, provided it did not undermine the strategic policies.
5. The Examiner rationally concluded that the plan did not challenge the strategic need for housing, contained no policy preventing delivery, and maintained the Policy OVE1 backstop. Retaining the settlement boundary did not create a legal failure, particularly as the boundary could be reviewed if development proposals were permitted or a new local plan was adopted.
6. The statutory scheme ordinarily requires written representations. The claimant had made detailed representations, which the Examiner considered and which led to amendments to his report. Further consultation before the Council’s decision was not required, and the Examiner was entitled to conclude that an oral hearing was unnecessary.
7. The Council could rely on the Examiner’s reasons. The officer’s report and the Chief Executive’s decision adequately addressed the statutory issues and gave sufficient reasons under paragraph 12(11) of Schedule 4B.

First-instance judicial review claim. The judgment records no prior appellate decision in the same proceedings.