High Court dismisses challenge to adoption of West Suffolk Local Plan
Planning & Environment, Judicial Review & Public Law, Local Government
The High Court has handed down judgment in Lochailort Kentford Limited v (1) West Suffolk Council; (2) SSCLG, dismissing a claim for statutory review of the decision of West Suffolk Council to adopt the West Suffolk Local Plan.
The Claimant promoted a site for allocation for employment and residential use in the Local Plan. After the examination had closed but before the Inspectors published their report, a subset of the promoted site was included by the Council in its Brownfield Land Register maintained pursuant to reg. 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Brownfield Land Register) Regulations 2017. The Promoted Site was ultimately not allocated.
At the heart of the claim was an argument that the inclusion of a subset of the promoted site on the Brownfield Land Register indicated that the Council considered the land to be suitable for development (reg.4(1)(b) of the BLR Regulations) and that this was inconsistent with the Council’s position in the process of preparing the Local Plan that the promoted site was not suitable for residential development. That inconsistency was said to give rise to three grounds of public law unlawfulness: (1) failure to have regard to an obviously material consideration; (2) irrationality; and (3) inconsistency of decision-making.
The reasoning
The High Court granted permission on all three grounds, but dismissed the claim. The reasoning in the judgment included the following:
- The Judge found that the Council’s reasons for not allocating the promoted site were contained in the Omission Sites Report, namely that “other sites within the type A villages of West Suffolk are considered more suitable and achievable options”. There was no inconsistency between a recognition that the promoted site is suitable for residential development and a conclusion that other sites within Type A villages are more suitable and achievable for residential development than the promoted site.
- In any event, only a small sub-part of the promoted site was included in the Brownfield Land Register.
- None of the reasons in the Omission Sites Report became incorrect as a result of the subsequent inclusion of part of the site on the Brownfield Land Register.
- Even if it had been unlawful for the Inspectors and the Council to have not taken into account the inclusion of part of the site on the Brownfield Land Register, the Judge would have refused relief pursuant to the Simplex principle.
West Suffolk Council was represented by Ruchi Parekh and Hannah Taylor. Ruchi also promoted the local plan at the examination hearings in November-December 2024.
