The court holds that the phrase “major development” does not have an overall uniform meaning despite its statutory definition in the procedural context
In Aston v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 1936 (Admin) the claimant sought to quash the decision of an inspector to grant planning permission for fourteen dwellings on the edge of a village. The appeal site comprised almost two hectares of rough grassland, within an AONB. Paragraph 115 of the NPPF provides that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in certain designated areas, including AONBs. Paragraph 116 provides that planning permission should be refused for “major developments” in those areas, except in exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest.
One of the claimant’s grounds was that the inspector erred in law when he concluded that the developer’s proposals did not constitute a “major development”. In support, the claimant pointed to Article 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010, which includes within the definition of “major development” any development involving ten or more dwellings. She pointed, in similar fashion, to the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009.
The court dismissed the claim on all grounds, holding in this respect that the inspector had been entitled to conclude that no major development was involved. (The view that the inspector had actually stated in his decision letter was that the development of fourteen dwellings could not properly be described as major “by any published or even commonsense criterion”.)
The judge felt unable to accept that the phrase “major development” should have a uniform meaning wherever it appeared in a policy document, procedural rule or government guidance – provided the context is town and country planning. The definition on which the claimant relied was imposed in the context of procedural matters. It was not appropriate to import a definition that might be sensible and desirable in such a context into a document intended to form a detailed policy framework. It was, however, appropriate to construe phrase in the context of the document in which it appeared.
The word “major” had a natural meaning in the English language, albeit not one that was precise. To define “major development” as precisely as the claimant had submitted would mean that the phrase had an artificiality that would not be appropriate in the context of the NPPF.
John Martin
