Key Facts
- •Lochailort Investments Limited owns land (NSP1) initially allocated for housing in the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 Part II (LPP2).
- •The allocation of NSP1, along with four other sites, was deemed unlawful in a previous judgment ([2022] EWHC 3432 (Admin)) due to errors in interpreting the spatial distribution strategy and a failure to consider reasonable alternatives.
- •The court remitted the unlawful allocations, requiring reconsideration.
- •Somerset Council (successor to Mendip District Council) amended the Policies Map, removing the allocations and reverting the development limits of Norton St. Philip to their pre-allocation boundaries.
- •Lochailort challenged the Council's redrawing of the development limits, arguing it was unlawful.
Legal Principles
The court has discretion to quash or remit a local plan or part thereof under s.113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (PCPA 2004).
PCPA 2004, s.113(7) and (7C)
A policies map accompanying a local plan is a Local Development Document (LDD) but not part of the local plan itself. It can be amended by resolution under s.23(1) and s.26(1) of PCPA 2004.
PCPA 2004, s.23(1), s.26(1); Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012 No. 767), regs. 2(1), 5, 6, 9
A local plan can rely on its accompanying Policies Map to define the geographical scope of a policy; the map need not be explicitly described in the plan's text.
Fox Land and Property Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWCA Civ 298; R (Bond) v Vale of White Horse District Council [2020] PTSR 724
The court's power to remit a plan allows for flexibility in granting relief, avoiding intrusion on planning judgment but ensuring the lawful consequences of a planning judgment are reflected.
Woodfield v JJ Gallagher Limited [2016] 1 WLR 5126
Outcomes
Lochailort's application for judicial review was dismissed.
The Council's redrawing of the development limits on the Adopted Policies Map was a lawful and rational response to the court's order. It addressed the consequences of the unlawful allocations, and the chosen method (reverting to pre-allocation boundaries) did not violate the court's order or relevant legislation.