The principles relating to the interpretation of a planning permission were most recently considered by the Court of Appeal in Barnett v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2009] EWCA Civ 476; [2009] JPL 1597; [2009] PLSCS 110. The issue that arose was whether a planning permission granted consent for the use of an area of land for purposes ancillary to a dwellinghouse, so that it became part of the curtilage of that dwellinghouse. In that event, it would benefit from Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.
As stated by Keene LJ in Barnett, the principles may be briefly summarised as follows:
? In the case of an outline planning permission that is clear and unambiguous and valid on its face, regard may be had only to the planning permission, including the conditions (if any) and the reasons for imposing them.
? However, if that outline planning permission incorporates, by reference, the planning application, the application is treated as having become part of the permission.
? In the case of a full planning permission, the plans and drawings submitted with it may always be referred to, whether or not they are expressly incorporated into the permission.
? This is because a full planning permission does not purport to be a complete and self-contained description of the development permitted.
The underlying rationale is that, in the case of a full planning permission, the public will know that there will be plans and drawings describing the permitted development. However, in the case of an outline planning permission, the public should be able to rely on a document that is plain on its face without having to discover whether there is a discrepancy between the permission and the application.
Needless to say, if a planning permission is ambiguous or is challenged on the ground of absence of authority or mistake it is always permissible to look at extrinsic material.
In Stevenage Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2010] EWHC 1298 (Admin); [2010] PLSCS 154, the judge applied these principles in the case of a full planning permission that did not incorporate the planning application and “on its face” related to external works only. On having regard to the plans accompanying the application, the judge was satisfied that the permission also extended to internal works.
John Martin is a freelance writer
