South Lakeland District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment

Under section 277(8) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, preserving the character or appearance of a conservation area does not require every development to make a positive contribution. Character or appearance is preserved when it is left unharmed.

A development which would cause harm attracts a strong presumption against planning permission, subject exceptionally to an overriding public interest. Where no adverse effect would result, the statutory objective presents no barrier and the proposal falls to be determined under ordinary planning criteria. A planning inspector’s decision letter must be read fairly and as a whole. Courts should avoid excessively legalistic textual criticism of such letters.

The second respondent sought outline planning permission to build a new vicarage within the grounds of the existing vicarage in the Cartmel Conservation Area. South Lakeland District Council refused permission because it considered the proposal seriously detrimental to the area’s historic, architectural and visual character.

The Secretary of State’s inspector allowed the planning appeal. He concluded that, with careful control of its design, the new house could be accommodated without damaging the village’s appearance. On the council’s application under section 245 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, a deputy High Court judge quashed that decision. The Court of Appeal reversed his decision: [1991] 1 W.L.R. 1322.

The central issue before the House was whether section 277(8) required development positively to preserve or enhance a conservation area, or merely prohibited development which would adversely affect its character or appearance. A subsidiary issue was whether the inspector had applied the correct test.

1. Disposition. Lord Bridge of Harwich delivered the leading speech. Lord Templeman, Lord Griffiths, Lord Ackner and Lord Oliver of Aylmerton agreed with his reasons. The House unanimously dismissed the council’s appeal, affirmed the Court of Appeal’s order and ordered the council to pay the respondents’ costs.
2. Meaning of preservation. Per Lord Bridge, section 277(8) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 did not require a proposed development itself to perform a positive preserving or enhancing function. The ordinary meaning of preservation included keeping the character or appearance of the conservation area safe from harm. The statutory objective was therefore achieved either by a positive contribution or by development which left that character or appearance unharmed.
3. Effect on planning decisions. Per Lord Bridge, the objective of preservation or enhancement must receive high priority. Development which conflicts with it attracts a strong presumption against planning permission, although an exceptional overriding public interest may justify permission. Where development would cause no adverse effect and was otherwise unobjectionable, the special statutory attention required by section 277(8) presented no barrier. Ordinary planning criteria then governed the decision.
4. The inspector’s decision. Per Lord Bridge, the decision letter, read fairly and as a whole, showed that the inspector considered the proposed house would not adversely affect the conservation area, provided its detailed design was properly controlled. References to a small effect and to other proposals having more damaging consequences did not alter that conclusion. Courts should strongly discourage excessively legalistic textual criticism of planning decision letters.
5. Earlier authorities. Lord Bridge approved Mann LJ’s construction in the Court of Appeal decision under appeal. He rejected the positive-preservation approach stated in Steinberg v Secretary of State for the Environment (1988) 58 P. & C.R. 453 and the contrary doubt expressed in The Bath Society v Secretary of State for the Environment [1991] 1 W.L.R. 1303. A requirement that every development must positively preserve or enhance would impose an unjustified rigidity which the statutory language did not support.

1. House of Lords: In South Lakeland District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1992] 2 AC 141, the House unanimously dismissed the council’s appeal, affirmed the Court of Appeal’s order and awarded the respondents their costs.
2. Court of Appeal: Butler-Sloss and Mann LJJ and Sir Christopher Slade reversed the deputy High Court judge’s decision, thereby restoring the inspector’s grant of planning permission: [1991] 1 W.L.R. 1322.
3. High Court: Lionel Read QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, allowed the council’s application under section 245 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and quashed the inspector’s decision.
4. Planning inspector: The inspector allowed the planning appeal and granted outline permission subject to conditions.