Foster v Borough of Poole

MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN: These proceedings purport to be a challenge to the Poole Local Plan First Revision. Such a challenge may only be made under the provisions of section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The grounds on which such a challenge may be made are well established. It must be demonstrated that the council has either acted outside its powers under the Act, alternatively that there has been some procedural failure, such as a failure to give proper reasons, which has resulted in substantial prejudice to the applicant. Proceedings of this kind are not is a further opportunity to argue about the planning merits, nor are they an opportunity to ventilate complaints about conduct on the part of either councillors or officers which are unrelated to the process of adopting the Plan.

It is clear that Mr Foster has a number of objections to the Plan. It is fair to say that he has not actually supplied copies of those parts of the Plan to which he objects, nor is the application properly supported by evidence. Even if it was, that would really be of no practical assistance to Mr Foster, because I am quite satisfied that none of the grounds that are raised are properly arguable under section 287. Thus there is, for example, an objection to the site and design of the New Harbour bridge and associated roads, and a contention that that is not the best solution, or possibly the cheapest. Mr Foster is certainly entitled to that view, but it cannot possibly be said to amount to the kind of point of law that can be argued under section 287. Again, by way of example, he objects to the loss of a heathland site that is proposed to be used for housing at Canford Heath. It is contended that the loss of heathland, or open space is undesirable. Similar observations apply to that kind of objection. Many of the objections are of that kind. In addition, there are allegations of misconduct on the part of the local authority and others. Thus it is suggested that there has been a cover up of "aggravated theft" of land, there has been corruption, that the public have been intimidated, that there has been danger, there has been harassment and so on and so forth.

It is right to say that these are simply bare assertions. They are wholly unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. Even if they were, there is nothing to indicate that if anything went wrong -- and I am not for a moment suggesting that anything did, but if anything went wrong -- it went wrong in terms of the preparation procedures for the Local Plan. There may well have been other detailed planning decisions in the area about which Mr Foster is very unhappy, but that is an entirely separate point.

So for these short reasons, I am quite satisfied that these objections, although they are very genuinely and strongly felt by Mr Foster, are not properly arguable under section 287 and the application must be dismissed.

I would simply say that, insofar as Mr Foster is complaining about a failure to give him documents and/or about misconduct on the part of any councillor or council officer, then complaints about that sort of matter should more properly be addressed to either the council's internal complaints system, alternatively, to the Local Government Ombudsman, formally entitled the Commission for Local Government Administration. I am not encouraging Mr Foster to pursue such complaints. I am simply saying that that is the proper avenue for such complaints. An application to quash the Plan under section 287 of the Act is certainly not the vehicle for those sort of complaints.

Mr Foster asked for an adjournment to enable him to obtain certain documents. I am not prepared to grant an adjournment. The application was lodged on 20th May 2004 and it is well established that it is very important that these challenges to development plans should be decided promptly one way or the other so that the planning authority and those who are affected by the plan know where they stand as soon as possible. Moreover, given the nature of the challenge, I am not satisfied that an adjournment would serve any useful purpose.

I have dealt with this application fairly shortly, because, without intending to be discourteous to Mr Foster, it is plainly entirely misconceived. He is perhaps fortunate in that, although the case has been listed today, and the council happens to be present, it has not had to incur the expense of instructing counsel or responding to the claim. If I adjourned the matter, it would simply mean that the council would incur expense which would inevitably, at the end of the day, have to be paid by Mr Foster. So that whilst he may not feel that I have done him in a favour, in truth, in dismissing the application today in this way, I have.

So, Mr Foster, for those reasons I dismiss your application.

THE CLAIMANT: Thank you, sir.

MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN: Thank you very much. You appreciate that the council is here. They have listened to what I have said so they know what has happened as well, even though you do not have to pay for them to be here. Thank you.