Clifton Neighbourhood Forum v Calderdale Council

An inspector’s reasons for concluding that a transport model is fit for purpose need not reproduce every representation or item of evidence. They must make clear, to an informed readership, how the principal controversial issues were resolved and why the inspector reached the relevant planning judgment. The reasons may be read in their documentary and procedural context, provided the court does not add to or rewrite them. Model-validation benchmarks are guidance rather than conclusive tests: meeting them does not guarantee fitness for purpose, and failing them does not necessarily preclude it. The ultimate question is whether robust conclusions can be drawn from the model outputs for the purpose in question.

The claimant, a designated neighbourhood forum, sought statutory review under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 of Calderdale Council’s adoption of its Local Plan. The challenge was limited to the adequacy of the planning inspector’s reasons for accepting the fitness for purpose of the Calderdale Strategic Transport Model.

The model used a 2014 base year and had been criticised for outdated data, apparent underestimation of traffic, failure to meet some WebTAG validation criteria and its proposed replacement by a multi-modal model. The inspector nevertheless concluded that it was robust and proportionate for preparation of the Local Plan. The central issue was whether paragraph 127 of the inspector’s report gave legally adequate reasons for that conclusion.

1. Claim dismissed. The inspector had discharged the statutory obligation to give reasons under section 20(7) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The claimant was ordered to pay the Council’s costs of contesting the claim in the agreed sum of £10,000 within 28 days of the order.
2. The inspector’s reasons had to be clear, adequate and intelligible, explaining how the principal important controversial issues were resolved and why, in the exercise of planning judgment, the conclusion was reached. The required degree of particularity depended on the issues for decision. The report was addressed to an informed audience familiar with the published evidence, and the inspector was not required to reproduce the representations or summarise every material consideration.
3. Read straightforwardly, paragraph 127 identified the model’s function, recognised the concern arising from its 2014 base year and planned replacement, referred to the validation review, evidence of traffic-flow trends and the representative nature of the underlying data, and concluded that the model did not significantly underestimate Brighouse traffic and was robust and proportionate for Local Plan preparation.
4. The court could consider the published evidential context and identify the reference-points which informed the inspector’s reasoning. That contextual reading did not amount to supplying an omitted reason or rewriting the report. The inspector was entitled to treat the review against Department for Transport criteria, the observed traffic-flow evidence and the model’s data-collection methods as answering the criticisms advanced.
5. WebTAG validation criteria were not a conclusive fitness-for-purpose test. The relevant question was whether robust conclusions could be drawn from the model outputs for the use being made of it. The inspector’s evaluative conclusion was legally intelligible and no public-law error was established.