St Albans City and District council has failed in a court battle to save its controversial local plan.

The council had challenged government planning inspector David Hogger’s conclusion that it has not met its duty to cooperate with neighbouring planning authorities when drawing up its Strategic Local Plan last year.

The council started legal proceedings in January this year to challenge the planning inspector’s conclusion.

However in his ruling at the High Court last week, Judge Sir Ross Cranston rejected the challenge, saying: “I accept the Secretary of State’s submission that once there is disagreement, I would add even fundamental disagreement, that is not an end of the duty to cooperate, especially in an area such as housing markets and housing need which involve as much art as science, and in which no two experts seem to agree.”

Cllr Mary Maynard, the council’s portfolio holder for planning, said: “We were pleased that the judge found sufficient merit in our case to give us permission to apply for judicial review. Nevertheless, today’s judgment is disappointing.

“We remain committed to delivering a Strategic Local Plan that will shape our housing, commercial, retail and industrial environment in the District until 2031. 

“We will take stock and re-assess our approach, and we look forward to working with all our stakeholders, particularly our neighbouring councils. We want to make sure we achieve the very best outcomes for residents. 

“This will include balancing the delivery of the right number of homes to meet the needs of our growing population, ensuring our business and retail community continue to thrive and protecting our precious green belt and green spaces.”

Cllr David Yates, planning policy committee Liberal Democrat group spokesperson, added: “The outcome is certainly disappointing. The inspector may have been legally entitled to conclude that St Albans had not shown him that it had cooperated sufficiently with neighbouring local authorities, but that doesn’t get us any closer to having a local plan in place.

“It’s frustrating that whilst everyone acknowledges that a ‘duty to cooperate’ is not a duty to agree, reaching a disagreement is taken as indicating a failure to cooperate.”