Background
Stuart Ian McQueen lives at Manor House in Long Thurlow, Suffolk, adjoining Cadogan House, where interested party Roy Woodfine lives. Badwell Ash Parish Council prepared a draft neighbourhood plan containing a new settlement boundary for Long Thurlow. After Woodfine requested an extension during consultation, the proposed boundary was changed to include the entirety of Manor House and Cadogan House.
An independent examiner concluded that the boundary was logical and pragmatic, noting a different pattern of development on the two sides of Long Thurlow Road and more backland development to the north. She recommended modifications to the draft plan and its submission to a referendum. On 18 August 2025, Mid Suffolk District Council accepted the examiner’s report and recommendations. McQueen sought judicial review, alleging that the examiner and Council had failed to consider four mandatory material considerations: an earlier draft local-plan boundary, Cadogan House’s planning history, the draft plan’s reference to reflecting development on the ground, and Woodfine’s membership of the Parish Council.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Choudhury dismissed the claim. The earlier draft boundary had plainly been considered: the neighbourhood plan and examiner’s report expressly referred to it, and the proposed boundary was largely based on it. Neither the Parish Council nor the examiner was legally bound by that earlier, unadopted boundary or required to justify every departure from it.
The earlier planning decisions concerning Cadogan House were not mandatory considerations. Decisions on individual planning applications were fundamentally different from the examiner’s limited, forward-looking task of deciding whether the neighbourhood plan met the statutory basic conditions; the policy context and conditions on the ground had also changed. The examiner permissibly considered the broader pattern of backland development north of Long Thurlow Road. Nor was there evidence of impropriety arising from Woodfine’s Parish Council membership: he was not part of the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group and had not attended its meetings. The examiner stated that she considered all consultation representations and adequately explained her assessment of the boundary.
Key Takeaways
- A neighbourhood-plan examiner’s statutory remit is confined principally to assessing the basic conditions, not reconsidering the planning merits or history of every site within a proposed boundary.
- Earlier decisions on site-specific planning applications are not necessarily comparable decisions requiring consistent treatment when a neighbourhood plan is examined.
- A settlement boundary may reflect the wider character and pattern of existing development without following the precise outlines of buildings already on each included property.
Why It Matters
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review in neighbourhood-plan cases and the distinction between plan-making and determining individual planning applications. Courts will not convert the basic-conditions examination into a site-by-site assessment of planning history or soundness.
It also confirms that inclusion within a settlement boundary does not guarantee planning permission. Under this plan, proposed development within the boundary would still have to maintain or enhance the area’s form, character and setting and satisfy the other applicable requirements.