Stuart Ian McQueen, R (on the application of) v Mid Suffolk District Council

In judicial review of a neighbourhood plan, the examiner and local planning authority must address the statutory basic conditions and other matters within the limited remit of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as applied by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. They need not undertake a site-by-site review of planning history or test the plan for soundness. Sustainable development and general conformity are assessed for the plan as a whole. A previous planning decision is not automatically a like decision for consistency purposes; differences in policy context, physical circumstances and subject matter may make the principle inapplicable. A settlement boundary may reflect a broader development pattern rather than the exact limits of existing buildings. Inclusion within the boundary does not make development unconditional. The claim was dismissed.

The claimant sought judicial review of Mid Suffolk District Council’s decision of 18 August 2025 to accept a draft neighbourhood plan as modified following an independent examination. The proposed settlement boundary for Long Thurlow included the claimant’s property and the adjoining property of the interested party.

The claimant alleged that the Council and examiner had failed to consider the settlement boundary in an earlier draft joint local plan, the planning history of the adjoining property, the plan’s reference to reflecting development on the ground, and the interested party’s role as a parish councillor. Permission was granted on 5 February 2026. The central issue was whether any of those matters was a mandatory material consideration, or so obviously material that failure to address it was irrational.

The claim for judicial review was dismissed.

1. Statutory remit. The examiner’s task under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as applied by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, was confined to the basic conditions and the other matters specified by Schedule 4B, subject to Convention-rights compatibility. The examiner’s recommendations and the authority’s power to modify the plan were similarly limited. The scheme was therefore materially narrower than a merits examination of the plan. The court relied on the statutory summary in R (Fylde Coast Farms Ltd (formerly Oyston Estates Ltd)) v Fylde Borough Council [2021] UKSC 18.
2. Material considerations. Applying R (Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster)) v North Yorkshire County Council [2020] UKSC 3, a challenge based on failure to consider a material matter succeeds only if the statute makes the matter mandatory, or if it was so obviously material on the facts that it was irrational not to address it. The planning history of an individual site was neither. A site-specific planning permission decision and examination of a forward-looking plan for a wider area involved different policy contexts, physical circumstances and subject matter. The more recent development at Blackthorn was a relevant change in context.
3. Whole-plan assessment. The basic conditions concerning national policy, sustainable development and general conformity were assessed by reference to the neighbourhood plan as a whole. The examination did not require consideration of soundness, a proportionate evidence base for each policy, every tension between individual policies, or the planning history of every site. The court applied the principles in R (Maynard) v Chiltern District Council [2015] EWHC 3817 (Admin), R (Crownhall Estates Ltd) v Chichester DC [2016] EWHC 73 (Admin) and R (Park Lane Homes (South East) Ltd) v Rother DC [2022] EWHC 485.
4. Consistency and the boundary. The consistency principle for previous planning decisions applies to genuinely like decisions. The principle in Baroness Cumberlege of Newick v SSCLG [2018] EWCA Civ 1305 did not govern the examination because the decisions were not comparable. The reference to reflecting development on the ground did not require the boundary to follow only the precise footprint of existing buildings. The examiner was entitled to consider the broader pattern of backland development and to reach a logical and pragmatic planning judgment.
5. Other objections. Inclusion within the settlement boundary did not make development unconditional because Policy BALT2 retained requirements concerning form, character, setting and spacing. There was no evidence of impropriety arising from the interested party’s request. The examiner was not required to initiate a separate inquiry on the basis of a bare allegation. The examiner stated that all representations had been considered and addressed the boundary. Applying R (Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site Limited) v Secretary of State for Transport [2024] EWCA Civ 1227, the burden lay on the claimant to show that the representations had not been considered, and that burden was not discharged.

This was a first-instance judicial review. Permission was granted by Lang J on 5 February 2026. No appellate decision is stated.