Planning appeal — Interpretation of local plan — Claimant appealing against refusal of permission for development outside village development limit identified in local plan — Inspector dismissing appeal on ground that development contrary to local plan — Whether inspector’s interpretation of local plan perverse — Claim allowed
The claimant wished to develop a site to the north of the village of Nether Stowey, Somerset, and outside the village development limit (VDL) identified in the local plan for the area. The local plan contained various policies (set out in capitals) plus additional material. It stated that the function of development limits was chiefly to interpret certain policies in the Somerset and Exmoor National Park joint structure plan. On appeal, the claimant obtained planning permission for the construction of 41 detached houses on the site, the creation of a new access to a nearby lane, and the widening of that lane. It later applied to the second defendant council for planning permission for a further 26 dwellings on the site. The council refused permission, and the claimant appealed to the first defendant Secretary of State.
The inspector found that the proposed development would not conflict with the structure plan policies, but considered that it conflicted with the local plan because it fell outside the VDL. He took the view, in light of the additional material in the local plan, that: (i) the plan imposed more stringent control over development in the countryside than did the structure plan; (ii) that it accorded more closely with the national policy guidance in PPG 7 and PPG 3; and (iii) it ought, therefore, to take precedence over the structure plan. He found that the development would be harmful to the pattern of rural development to the north of the village, contrary to the policy of the local plan, and he accordingly dismissed the appeal.
The claimant challenged that decision under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It contended, inter alia, that the inspector’s conclusions as to the stringency of the local plan and the weight to be attached to it were perverse. It submitted that the inspector had erred in interpreting the local plan policy as restricting development outside the VDL, when it did no more than draw a boundary to facilitate the application of the relevant structure plan policies.
Held: The claim was allowed.
The inspector had erred in his interpretation of the local plan, attaching to it a meaning that it was not capable of bearing: R v Derbyshire County Council, ex parte Woods [1997] JPL 958 applied. The policies of the local plan did no more than define specific sites for particular types of development and identify the settlements suitable for application of the relevant structure plan policies. They supplemented the structure plan policies, and it was the combination of the two that constituted the development plan for the area. It was plain that the only policies in the local plan were those set out in capitals; the rest of the material was merely explanatory and did not form part of the development plan: Reigate and Banstead Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] 3 PLR 1 considered. The basis of the inspector’s reasoning in the remainder of his decision had proceeded upon an erroneous basis, and his decision would be quashed.
Nicholas Nardecchia (instructed by Halliwell Landau, of Manchester) appeared for the claimant; Rupert Warren (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; the second defendants did not appear and were not represented.
Sally Dobson, barrister
