Background
Lochailort Kentford Limited (the “Claimant”) owns a 48.5-hectare site in Kentford, formerly the Animal Health Trust. The Claimant promoted a 15.92-hectare portion of the site (the “Promoted Site”) for housing and employment use in the West Suffolk Local Plan. The West Suffolk Council (the “Council”) declined to allocate the Promoted Site for housing, stating in its Omission Sites Report (OSR) that “other sites within the type A villages of West Suffolk are considered more suitable and achievable options”. The reasons included potential impacts on a Grade II listed building on the site and its setting.
Following the public examination hearings for the Local Plan, but before the planning inspectors issued their final report, the Council updated its Brownfield Land Register. It included a 3.83-hectare portion of the Promoted Site (containing the existing buildings) in Part 1 of the Register. This designation required a finding that the land was “suitable for residential development” under the relevant regulations. The Claimant was not immediately aware of this update.
The planning inspectors subsequently issued a report finding the Local Plan to be sound and legally compliant, without reference to the Brownfield Land Register entry. The Council formally adopted the Local Plan. The Claimant challenged the adoption, arguing that the Council’s finding that the land was “suitable” for the Register was inconsistent with its refusal to allocate the site in the Local Plan, and that this was a material consideration that the inspectors and the Council failed to take into account.
The Court’s Holding
The High Court, per Mr Justice Coppel, dismissed the claim. The court found no legal error in the Council’s adoption of the Local Plan. The central issue was whether the Council’s decision to add a portion of the site to the Brownfield Land Register created a fatal inconsistency with its decision not to allocate the larger Promoted Site for housing in the Local Plan.
The court held that there was no inconsistency. The decision not to allocate the Promoted Site in the Local Plan was based on a *comparative* assessment: the OSR concluded that other sites were “more suitable and achievable.” This is different from the threshold assessment for the Brownfield Land Register, which merely establishes that a site is “suitable for residential development” in principle, without comparing it to other sites. A finding of suitability for the register does not contradict a planning judgment that other sites are preferable for allocation in a strategic plan.
Furthermore, the court noted the difference in the land areas assessed. The Register entry concerned only a small, 3.83-hectare part of the site, whereas the Local Plan decision concerned the entire 15.92-hectare Promoted Site, which had additional constraints. The court concluded that the Register entry was not “so obviously material” that it was irrational for the inspectors or the Council not to consider it, particularly after the examination hearings had closed. Even if it had been considered, the court found it was inconceivable that it would have changed the outcome.
Key Takeaways
- A local authority’s finding that land is “suitable for residential development” for inclusion in a Brownfield Land Register is not legally inconsistent with a decision not to allocate that land for housing in its Local Plan.
- The process of site allocation for a Local Plan involves a strategic, *comparative* assessment of a site’s suitability against other reasonable alternatives, whereas inclusion in Part 1 of the Brownfield Land Register is a non-comparative, threshold determination.
- For a new fact to be an “obviously material consideration” that a decision-maker unlawfully fails to consider after hearings have closed, it must be essential to the conclusions. Information that does not undermine the core reasoning for a decision is unlikely to meet this high legal threshold.
Why It Matters
This judgment provides important clarity on the relationship between two distinct planning tools: strategic Local Plans and Brownfield Land Registers. It confirms that these serve different functions and that a determination under one does not dictate the outcome of the other. The term “suitable” is used in different contexts and does not have a universal meaning across all planning regulations.
For landowners and developers, the case underscores that securing a site’s entry onto a Brownfield Land Register is not a golden ticket to its allocation in a Local Plan. The allocation of development sites remains a comprehensive and comparative exercise at the discretion of the local planning authority. This ruling reinforces the high bar required to successfully challenge the soundness of an adopted Local Plan on procedural grounds in court.