Clarifying Interpretation of Local Planning Policies: Canterbury City Council v. SSCLG & Anor ([2018] EWHC 1611 (Admin)): England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court)

1. Introduction

The case of Canterbury City Council v. SSCLG & Anor ([2018] EWHC 1611 (Admin)) addresses critical issues concerning the interpretation and application of local planning policies within the framework of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The central parties involved are the claimant, Canterbury City Council, and the defendants, SSCLG (Second Defendant) and another anonymous party (Second Defendant).

The dispute originates from an application by the second defendant for planning permission to erect up to 85 residential dwellings in the village of Blean. The initial refusal by the claimant led to an appeal, which culminated in a public inquiry where the Inspector granted conditional permission. The claimant challenged this decision on grounds of misinterpretation of local planning policies, leading to this high court case.

This commentary explores the intricacies of the judgment, dissecting the legal reasoning, precedents, and the implications of the court's decision on future planning cases.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court quashed the Inspector's decision to grant conditional planning permission to the second defendant's development proposal. The court found that the Inspector had erred in law by misinterpreting policies H1 and H9 of the Canterbury District Local Plan 2006. Specifically, the inspector failed to recognize that policies H1 and H9 implicitly restricted residential developments to designated areas, such as previously developed land within urban areas or specific sites within villages.

The court emphasized the paramount importance of adhering to the development plan as stipulated by section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, unless overridden by other material considerations. The judgment underscored that the correct interpretation of planning policies is a question of law and that misinterpretation can invalidate planning decisions.

Consequently, the court ordered the quashing of the Inspector's decision and mandated a redetermination by a different Inspector, highlighting the necessity for accurate policy interpretation in planning matters.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

City of Edinburgh Council v Secretary of State for Scotland [1997] 1 WLR 1447: Established the principle that the development plan has statutory priority in planning decisions.
R (on the application of Hampton Bishop Parish Council) v Herefordshire Council and Another [2014] EWCA Civ 878: Reinforced the approach to section 38(6), emphasizing the necessity to consider the development plan unless material considerations dictate otherwise.
Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13: Confirmed that the interpretation of planning policies is a question of law, affirming that courts are the proper forum for resolving disputes over policy meanings.
Hopkins Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] 1 WLR 1865: Highlighted the distinction between policy interpretation (a legal question) and policy application (a matter of planning judgment).
Cherkley Campaign Limited v Mole Valley District Council and Another [2014] EWCA Civ 567: Clarified that supporting or explanatory texts in a local plan do not hold the force of policy and cannot override the main policy statements.
Bloor Homes East Midlands Ltd v SSCLG: Reinforced that policies outlining specific allocation of land for development cannot be circumvented by inferred or implied restrictions.

These precedents collectively emphasize the judiciary's role in ensuring that planning decisions adhere strictly to the articulated development plans and that any misinterpretation of these policies by planning authorities can be judicially reviewed and rectified.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centers on the correct interpretation of the local planning policies H1 and H9 and their application under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The key points include:

Priority of the Development Plan: Section 38(6) mandates that planning decisions must align with the development plan unless overridden by other material considerations. The development plan is the primary document guiding planning authorities.
Interpretation of Policies: The court stressed that interpreting planning policies is a question of law, necessitating an objective analysis of the policy language without subjective inference.
Permissive Language Does Not Equate to Nullification: Even though policies H1 and H9 used permissive language (e.g., "will be permitted"), this does not imply a lack of restriction on developments outside the specified areas.
Implicit Restrictions: The policies clearly delineated acceptable locations for development (allocated sites and previously developed land). Proposals outside these areas were inherently inconsistent with the policies.
Supporting Text vs. Policy Text: Explanatory or supporting texts in the local plan do not hold the status of policy and cannot be used to infer additional restrictions not explicitly stated in the policy clauses.
Error of Law: The Inspector's failure to recognize the implicit restrictions within policies H1 and H9 constituted a misinterpretation of the law, thus invalidating the decision to grant permission.

By meticulously analyzing the language and intent of the policies, the court concluded that the Inspector had not adhered to the statutory requirements, thereby necessitating the quashing of the decision.

3.3 Impact

The judgment has significant implications for future planning decisions and the broader field of urban development. Key impacts include:

Emphasis on Accurate Policy Interpretation: Planning authorities must ensure meticulous interpretation of local planning policies, recognizing that permissive language does not equate to permissiveness in all locations.
Judicial Oversight: The court reaffirmed its role in scrutinizing planning decisions, particularly when there is an alleged misapplication of planning policies.
Clarity in Policy Drafting: Local authorities might be prompted to draft policies with greater precision to avoid ambiguities that could lead to legal challenges.
Reaffirmation of Development Plan Priority: The judgment underscores the supremacy of the development plan in guiding planning decisions, reinforcing the framework established by section 38(6).
Training and Guidelines for Inspectors: Planning inspectors may require enhanced training and clear guidelines to interpret and apply local planning policies correctly, minimizing the risk of errors leading to judicial intervention.

Overall, the decision serves as a precedent emphasizing the necessity for planning authorities to adhere strictly to their development plans and to interpret policies within their explicit and intended contexts.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

4.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

This statutory provision dictates that local planning authorities must base their decisions on the development plan unless other significant factors justify a departure. It establishes the development plan as the primary reference point in planning decisions, ensuring consistency and adherence to predetermined planning objectives.

4.2 Development Plan Policies (H1 and H9)

Policy H1: Focuses on permitting residential development primarily on allocated sites and previously developed land within urban areas. Its permissive language ("will be permitted") does not imply that development is allowed elsewhere without restrictions.

Policy H9: Governs new residential developments exceeding minor scales on previously developed sites within villages. It sets criteria to ensure such developments do not adversely impact local infrastructure, character, or environmental objectives.

4.3 Presumption in Favor of Sustainable Development

Originating from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), this principle guides that development proposals aligning with sustainability objectives should generally be approved, reinforcing the balance between development and environmental/social considerations.

4.4 Material Considerations

These are factors that would lead a planning authority to deviate from the development plan despite its provisions. They include environmental impacts, community benefits, and economic factors. However, they must be substantial enough to override the development plan's directives.

5. Conclusion

The High Court's judgment in Canterbury City Council v. SSCLG & Anor underscores the critical importance of accurate interpretation and application of local development plans in the planning process. By recognizing and rectifying the Inspector's misinterpretation of policies H1 and H9, the court has reinforced the integrity and precedence of development plans in guiding sustainable and strategically aligned urban development.

For planning authorities and developers alike, this decision serves as a clarion call to meticulously adhere to the wording and intent of planning policies. It emphasizes that permissive language within policies does not negate implicit restrictions and that policies are to be interpreted within their specific contexts and overarching strategic objectives.

Moving forward, the ruling promotes a balanced approach to development—encouraging growth and sustainability while safeguarding established planning objectives and community interests. It also affirms the judiciary's role in ensuring that planning decisions remain within the legal frameworks established by development plans, thereby maintaining the rule of law and promoting fair adjudication in matters of urban development.

Clarifying Interpretation of Local Planning Policies: Canterbury City Council v. SSCLG & Anor ([2018] EWHC 1611 (Admin))