The claimant in R (on the application of Khan) v London Borough of Sutton (see PP2014/172) also sought to contend that the local planning authority (LPA) had erred in its interpretation of the applicable waste plan. Policy WP3 of that plan – entitled “Existing waste sites” – identified a number of sites in Schedule 1, including the application site, and provided that they were to be safeguarded for their current uses or converted to waste management. An asterisk appearing in Schedule 1 against the name of the application site indicated in a footnote that, after the expiry in 2023 of existing temporary planning permissions, the site would be incorporated into an existing regional park.
The claimant submitted that the officer’s report was incorrect in stating that the development proposals were not contrary to Policy WP3. That policy was more than a safeguarding policy. It was a policy that was prescriptive, and that set a time period after which waste disposal at the application site would not be acceptable and the site should revert to metropolitan open land. The defendant and the interested party submitted that there was no inconsistency with Policy WPA, relying upon the decision in R (on the application of Cherkley Campaign Ltd) v Mole Valley District Council [2014] EWCA Civ 567; [2014] PLSCS 138.
In that case, a local amenity group had applied successfully at first instance to quash the decision of the LPA to grant planning permission for an exclusive private golf course, hotel, health club and spa on green belt land. A “saved” local plan policy – Policy REC12 – referred specifically to the development of golf courses. The group contended, inter alia, that Policy REC12 obliged applicants proposing new golf courses to demonstrate that there was a need for further facilities.
