Town and country planning – National Planning Policy Framework – Previously developed land – Appellants challenging grant of planning permission by respondent for development on site in green belt within residential curtilage of existing building – Whether respondent’s planning inspector wrong to find that site qualifying as “previously developed land” within definition in NPPF – Appeal dismissed
A planning inspector appointed by the respondent secretary of state allowed an appeal against a refusal by the appellant council to grant planning permission for a change of use of land to a private gypsy and traveller caravan site comprising one mobile home and one touring caravan. The site in question lay within the residential curtilage of a property within the green belt.
The inspector decided that the site qualified as “previously developed land”, as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), since it was within the curtilage of a permanent structure and did not fall within the exclusion for land “in built-up areas such as private residential gardens, parks recreation grounds and allotments”.
The appellants appealed. They contended that the definition of “previously developed land” should be interpreted in such a way that all private residential gardens were excluded, whether or not they were in a built-up area, since any other interpretation would give rise to conflicts between other policies in the NPPF. They relied on conflicts between two of the core principles in paras 17, so far as they required protection of the green belt but also encouraged the re-use of previously developed land; and between the policies in paras 55 and 111 of the NPPF, which respectively discouraged isolated new homes in the countryside should be avoided but encouraged the re-use of land that had previously been developed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
(1) Reading the exclusion according to the ordinary meaning of the words used, it applied only to “land in built-up” areas, with the types of land listed after the words “such as” being merely examples of the more general expression that preceded them. “Land in built-up areas” could not mean land that was not in a built-up area.
Even if that interpretation meant that other parts of the NPPF were in conflict with each other, it was not the business of an interpreter to search for possible ambiguities in order to detract from the obvious meaning of the words to be interpreted. Unlike a contract, which one would expect to be internally consistent, development plan documents often contained broad statements of policy that might be mutually irreconcilable, such that one would have to give way to another in a particular case. The NPPF was like a development plan document in that respect: Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee County Council [2012] UKSC 13; [2012] PTSR 983; [2012] PLSCS 69.
(2) In any event, the proper interpretation of the exclusion did not give rise to any conflict. The NPPF accommodated the definition of previously developed land within the general policy about development in the green belt. If a new building involved partial redevelopment of a previously developed site, then it was not to be regarded as inappropriate development in the green belt, provided that it had no greater impact on the openness of the green belt than the existing development. That proviso meant that the encouragement of development on brownfield land was not unqualified, at least in the green belt: see paras 87 and 89 of the NPPF. Accordingly, no conflict arose between the core principles in para 17 of the NPPF so far as they required protection of the green belt while also encouraging the re-use of previously developed land.
Likewise, in the present context there was no conflict between the policy in para 55 of the NPPF against isolated new homes in the countryside and the policy in para 111 in favour of re-using previously developed land. The starting point was that the proposed development was in the curtilage of an existing permanent structure. It followed that a new dwelling within that curtilage would not be an “isolated” home. Since para 111 expressly referred to previously developed land, no conflict arose.
(4) The NPPF was a standalone document which should be interpreted according to its own terms. Although previous policy guidance remained relevant, at least in the case of the green belt, such previous policy should not be invoked to create ambiguities in the NPPF where the language of that document was clear. It would be wrong to expect the public, for whose benefit the NPPF was published, or indeed a would-be developer, to have to investigate previous iterations of government planning policy, or ministerial statements made in relation to them, in order to understand the NPPF. That would defeat one of the main purposes of introducing the NPPF: Timmins v Gedling Borough Council [2015] EWCA Civ 10; [2015] PTSR 837; [2015] PLSCS 21 and Turner v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWCA Civ 466; [2016] EGLR 53 considered.
Ashley Bowes (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard LLP) appeared for the appellants; Charles Banner (instructed by the Government Legal Department) appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister
