Bredhurst Parish Council v Maidstone Borough Council & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2373 (Admin)
Clifton Neighbourhood Forum v Calderdale Council
17 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1175 (Admin)
High Court
A group challenged a local plan because they thought the traffic model used was outdated and inaccurate. The judge decided that even though the explanation was short, it was good enough because it answered the important questions about the model. The challenge failed, and the group had to pay costs.
Key Facts
- •Challenge to the Calderdale Local Plan's adoption due to the adequacy of reasons given for the transport model's fitness for purpose.
- •The Calderdale Strategic Transport Model (CSTM) was used to assess the plan's impact on the highway network.
- •The CSTM's base year was 2014, and its outdatedness and planned replacement were questioned.
- •The Claimant (Clifton Neighbourhood Forum) argued the model was unfit for purpose, citing consultant TTHC's reports and a West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) report.
- •The Defendant (Calderdale Council) and the Interested Party (Secretary of State) defended the plan's soundness and the model's adequacy.
- •The court reviewed the planning inspector's reasons, particularly paragraph 127 of her report, concerning the CSTM's fitness for purpose.
Legal Principles
Statutory review under s.113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 engages conventional public law principles.
Cherwell Development Watch Alliance v Cherwell DC [2021] EWHC 2190 (Admin)
A local plan is sound if it is positively prepared, justified, effective, and consistent with national policy (NPPF §182).
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
A local authority must have regard to national policies and guidance (2014 Act ss.13, 17(6) and 19(2)(a)).
2014 Act
An inspector must give clear, adequate, and intelligible reasons explaining how controversial issues were resolved (CPRE Surrey v Secretary of State [2019] EWCA Civ 1826).
CPRE Surrey v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government [2019] EWCA Civ 1826
The test of fitness for purpose of a transport model is whether robust conclusions can be drawn from its outputs (Transport Analysis Guidance, May 2018, §3.5.3).
Transport Analysis Guidance (May 2018)
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The Inspector's reasons, though brief, were legally adequate. They addressed the key criticisms and demonstrated the reasoning behind her conclusion that the CSTM was fit for purpose.
The Claimant ordered to pay the Council's costs (£10,000).
Agreed by the parties.
Similar Cases
Timothy James House & Anor v Waverley Borough Council & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3011 (Admin)
Bentley Pauncefoot Parish Council v Redditch Borough Council & Anor
[2023] EWHC 456 (Admin)
Elizabeth Soilleux v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities
[2023] EWHC 204 (Admin)
Bedford Park Developments v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2337 (Admin)