It is settled law that a local planning authority (“LPA”), in determining an application for planning permission, is required to proceed on the basis of a proper interpretation of the relevant provisions of the development plan and that such interpretation is a matter of textual interpretation for the court; not a matter of planning judgment. For instance, the concept of “need” features widely as a policy consideration. In terms of dictionary definitions, the spectrum of potential meaning of the word is wide. However, when interpreting provisions of the development plan, the word must be viewed as taking its colour and meaning from its general and specific context.
In R (on the application of Cherkley Campaign Ltd) v Mole Valley District Council [2013] EWHC 2582 (Admin); [2013] PLSCS 217 the claimant sought 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 in Surrey. A local plan policy, intended to protect the countryside, stated that applicants proposing new golf courses would be required to demonstrate that there was a need for further facilities. One of the claimant’s grounds of challenge was that the developer had failed to do this. The developer argued that the concept of “need” could be equated to “demand” or even “viability” in the economic sense.
The court allowed the claim, dismissing the developer’s arguments. It held that the LPA’s planning committee – which had departed from the officer’s recommendations – had erred in law, in part because they had misunderstood the meaning of “need” in this case. Had they understood the proper meaning of the word in the general and specific context, they could not rationally have concluded that there was a need for the development.
In this general and specific context, the following principles emerge. (1) Planning law is concerned with the regulation of the private use of land in the interests of the community as a whole. (2) Proof of private “demand” for exclusive golf facilities does not equate to “need” in the context of the development plan policy. (3) The word “need” means “required” in the interests of the public and the community as a whole. (4) It does not mean “demand” or “desire” by private interests. (5) Likewise, mere proof of “viability” is insufficient. (6) Pure private demand is antithetical to public need, particularly where it is very exclusive private demand.
