Carter Commercial Developments Limited (In Administration) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; Mendip District Council (Interested Party)

A planning permission is construed as a public document, giving it the meaning that a reasonable reader would derive from the permission, its conditions, its stated reasons and any documents properly incorporated into it. The condition and its reason must be read together. A condition requiring flood-prevention works for development on a site does not, without sufficiently clear words, require the developer to remedy an existing off-site flooding problem or protect people travelling to the site. A general condition cannot impose wider off-site works merely because they would be desirable.

The claimant challenged, under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, an inspector’s refusal to approve its flood-mitigation scheme and related engineering works. The dispute concerned a condition attached to a 1998 variation of planning permission for a retail store at a site prone to flooding.

The inspector considered that the condition required the developer to resolve recurring flooding at the Rodden Road junction on the A362, although that was an existing off-site problem. Mr Justice Sullivan rejected that construction. Mendip District Council appealed, raising the proper interpretation of the amended condition.

1. Appeal dismissed. The amended planning condition required flood-prevention works directed to reducing flood risks on the development site to an acceptable level, permitting development without causing flooding elsewhere to the detriment of land and property. It did not require works resolving the existing flooding problem at the Rodden Road junction.
2. Planning permission is a public document. It is construed by asking what meaning a reasonable reader would give it from the permission, variation, application form and incorporated Lewin Fryer report. The permission is not construed like a commercial contract. The condition must be read with its express reason, in accordance with R v Ashford Borough Council, ex parte Shepway District Council [1999] PLCR 12.
3. The words “for the purposes of flood prevention” referred naturally to prevention of flooding on the permitted site. The condition did not extend to ensuring the safety of customers, employees or suppliers travelling to the site.
4. The phrase “affecting the site” could not bear the Council’s wider meaning. Potentially desirable off-site works could have been required by specific conditions, but the general wording used here did not do so.
5. All three judges agreed that the appeal should be dismissed. The order was: appeal dismissed with costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal by Mendip District Council dismissed with costs.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Mr Justice Sullivan rejected the inspector’s construction of Condition 04 in proceedings under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
• Inspector: dismissed the claimant’s appeals and refused approval of the proposed flood-mitigation details and related engineering works.