Factual and Procedural Background
On 30th August 2022, the Mendip District Council granted outline planning permission for a mixed-use development on land at Saxonvale in Frome town centre ("the Acorn site"). On 1st April 2023, Mendip District Council was abolished and Somerset Council became the responsible local planning authority. Somerset Council was substituted as Defendant in these proceedings. The Defendant owns the land and is in a commercial partnership with a developer, Acorn Property Group, which was served as an Interested Party but did not actively participate in the proceedings.
The Claimant owns adjacent land known as the Silk Mill. The Acorn site occupies at least 80% of Saxonvale. The judicial review concerns the interpretation of Core Policy 6 ("CP6") of the Defendant's Local Plan Part 1: Strategies and Policies 2006-2029 ("the local plan"), adopted on 15th December 2014. It is agreed that the Court must interpret CP6, not the Defendant, and if the Defendant's planning officer erred in this interpretation, the Claimant's application for judicial review must succeed.
The planning permission included mixed-use development for residential dwellings, flexible live/work accommodation, residential care accommodation, and mixed workspace/retail/café/restaurant/bar/public house/community/cultural/leisure uses, with associated infrastructure. The planning officer's report advised members that the application complied with CP6, including 4,181m² of non-residential floorspace, which contained an element of retail use that should not be counted under the policy.
Frome town centre is marked on the local plan key diagram and comprises Saxonvale, the Westway centre, and Market Place. Saxonvale occupies about half of the Town Centre Development area and has approximately 60,000m² of available floorspace. The 4,181m² figure is less than 50% of the 11,850m² headline figure for town centre redevelopment in CP6, a point of significance in the dispute.
Legal Issues Presented
- What is the correct interpretation of the fifth indent of the third bullet point of Core Policy 6 (CP6) regarding the requirement that at least 50% of the flexible office/studio space requirement be delivered within Saxonvale?
- Whether the planning permission granted was lawful given the interpretation of CP6 and the extent to which the planning officer’s report complied with the policy.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The fifth indent of CP6’s third bullet refers to two distinct matters (the FETE educational site and the "at least half" flexible office/studio space requirement) both relating specifically to Saxonvale; otherwise, a separate indent would have been included.
- It is nonsensical to interpret the policy as requiring only half of the flexible office/studio space requirement to be met through town centre redevelopments without specifying where the remainder should be delivered; thus, at least 50% should be met within Saxonvale, with the remainder elsewhere in the town centre.
- The phrase "will collectively deliver" in the third bullet point applies to all indents, and the express reference to Saxonvale in the fifth indent cannot be confined only to the FETE site.
- Town centre uses should be delivered within the town centre as a matter of language and policy.
- In the alternative, at least 50% of the requirement should be met in Saxonvale, with the remaining portion potentially met elsewhere in Frome.
Respondent's Arguments
- CP6 should be construed as a high-level, indicative policy rather than an allocation policy, and does not require the entire need or at least 50% of it to be met specifically within Saxonvale.
- The reference to table 10 does not establish a requirement for 11,850m² of flexible office/studio space exclusively within Saxonvale or the town centre; the uses are not restricted geographically and can be integrated into various urban settings.
- The Claimant’s subsidiary case collapses into the primary case and fails for the same reasons.
- At least half of the town centre uses requirement must be provided within the town centre as a whole, not limited to Saxonvale, with the remainder provided either in the town centre or elsewhere in Frome.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R (oao Cherkley Campaign Ltd) v Mole Valley DC [2014] EWCA Civ 567 |
Explanatory text may be used to support interpretation of planning policy even if it does not itself constitute policy. |
The court relied on this precedent to justify using the "reasoned justifications" for CP6 and CP3 to aid interpretation of the local plan policies. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court acknowledged that CP6 is not a strict allocation policy but a high-level, indicative statement of how needs might be met. The Court found that national policy paragraph 23 of the NPPF 2012, which emphasizes meeting main town centre uses within town centres, was more relevant than paragraph 24, which governs planning applications and sequential site selection.
The Court analyzed the third bullet of CP6 as concerned with town centre redevelopments within Frome town centre, including Saxonvale, and that these redevelopments "will collectively deliver" various objectives set out in the indents. The fifth indent, requiring at least half of the flexible office/studio space requirement including a permanent site for FETE within Saxonvale, was found to be poorly drafted and ambiguous but clearly referred to Saxonvale specifically.
The Court rejected the Defendant’s broader interpretation that at least 50% of the requirement could be met anywhere in Frome town centre, finding it inconsistent with the policy’s wording and objectives. The Court accepted the Claimant’s alternative position that at least half of the 11,850m² town centre use requirement must be met within Saxonvale, with the remainder potentially met elsewhere.
The Court noted that the absence of punctuation in the fifth indent complicated interpretation but ultimately favored a combined textual and purposive approach that supported the Claimant’s narrower interpretation. The Court emphasized that Saxonvale comprises at least 80% of the Town Centre Development Area, justifying the focus on Saxonvale for meeting at least half of the requirement.
The Court also distinguished the local plan formulation stage from the planning application stage, noting that the sequential approach in paragraph 24 of NPPF 2012 is relevant to planning applications but not to local plan interpretation. Therefore, the Defendant’s reliance on paragraph 24 was insufficient to displace the Claimant’s interpretation.
Holding and Implications
The Court held that the Claimant’s application for judicial review succeeds. The planning permission granted on 30th August 2022 is quashed.
The direct consequence is that the outline planning permission for the mixed-use development at the Acorn site is invalidated. This decision does not establish a new precedent beyond confirming the correct interpretation of CP6 in this context. The ruling emphasizes the necessity for clarity in policy drafting and affirms the Court’s role in interpreting local plan policies in accordance with both textual and purposive approaches.