Basildon Borough Council has been warned that action to withdraw its emerging Local Plan could be unlawful under an existing ministerial direction. The warning, set out in a 26 October letter from Housing and Planning Minister Matthew Pennycook, came before councillors considered how to respond to concerns about the scale and infrastructure implications of the draft plan.
The letter did not take the Plan out of the council’s hands, start legal proceedings or report a decision by the council. It set out what the Minister said could follow if the authority took steps to withdraw the Plan despite a direction issued in July. The possibilities named were a government takeover of the plan-making process and potential legal action. Both remain possibilities rather than actions that have already happened.
The earlier direction remains central
The July intervention required Basildon to progress its emerging Local Plan through the formal process. It required the authority to begin its Regulation 19 consultation by 10 August, submit the Plan for independent examination by 31 December and continue it through the end of that examination. It also required monthly progress reports and said that the council must not take steps to withdraw the Plan.
Regulation 19 is a formal consultation stage in plan-making. It allows representations on a plan that an authority intends to submit for independent examination. Reaching that stage does not approve individual housing sites or make every emerging policy final. Nor does a ministerial direction make the Plan adopted policy. The direction governs the route that the council must follow while the Plan is still being tested.
Basildon’s request for more time to submit the Plan remains unresolved. A separate extension announced on 23 October moved the general examination-submission deadline for qualifying legacy plans to 31 March 2027. That general extension does not apply automatically to authorities subject to formal local-plan intervention. Basildon’s existing direction therefore remains in place unless it is changed or withdrawn.
Council vote keeps a challenge open
At its later meeting on 26 October, the council voted to pursue a judicial review challenge and to keep the possible withdrawal of the Plan open only as a last resort. The motion did not withdraw the Plan. It made that option conditional on the judicial review not succeeding, legal advice and the procedural requirements that would apply at the time.
The vote followed arguments about whether the draft Plan can be delivered with sufficient roads, schools, healthcare capacity and other infrastructure. The proposals also have prompted concern about development on Green Belt land. Those issues are part of the policy and evidence debate around the Plan, but they do not themselves cancel the July direction or settle the legal position on withdrawal.
The council also agreed to raise its concerns about housing requirements and infrastructure with the Secretary of State. That is separate from the question of whether it can withdraw the Plan while the direction continues. The amended motion was framed as a future contingency, not as an immediate instruction to stop the current consultation or examination route.
What has not been decided
There is no completed government takeover of Basildon’s Plan and no court judgment arising from the 26 October letter. No public confirmation has established that a judicial review has been filed or determined. The Minister has said that the council’s request for extra time will be considered, but the letter did not grant a new individual deadline.
The next substantive questions are therefore procedural. The council must decide how it will continue to comply with the existing direction while pursuing its challenge. Ministers must decide whether to alter the specified timetable. Any eventual examination would then consider the Plan, the representations made during consultation and the evidence supporting its proposals. For residents and businesses, the immediate significance is that the Plan remains in the statutory process, while the dispute over its pace and content has become sharper.
