Rosy Homes (Holt) Ltd., R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor

Development plan policies must be interpreted according to their language, structure and context. Explanatory material forming part of a local plan may assist interpretation, but it must be related to the policy it explains. A policy permitting limited development within defined village limits cannot be rewritten as a general prohibition on development outside those limits. Nor can land be treated as open countryside where the adopted structure plan distinguishes open countryside from land within or adjoining settlements. A material misinterpretation of such policies vitiates the planning decision and ordinarily requires it to be quashed and reconsidered.

The claimant challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act an inspector’s refusal of an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for redevelopment of a disused factory site in Holt with dwellings, offices and workshops.

The inspector considered the proposal contrary to policies in the district and structure plans. The central issue was whether the inspector had correctly interpreted the policies governing development within village policy limits, development in the countryside, and development in the open countryside.

1. The claim succeeded. The inspector’s decision was quashed and the matter was remitted to the first respondent for reconsideration. The claimant was awarded assessed costs of £6,657.10.
2. Under section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act, the determination had to accord with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. The proper interpretation of the plan policies was therefore determinative of the inspector’s decision-making framework.
3. Section 36(6) confirmed that explanatory matter contained in a local plan formed part of the plan to which the inspector was required to have regard and was required to follow unless other matters indicated otherwise. Paragraph 3.2.29 of the district plan, however, was directed to policies H7 and H7A, not to policy H5.
4. Policy H5 permitted limited development within defined Village Policy Limits if four stated criteria were satisfied. It did not establish that all land outside those limits was subject to a prohibition equivalent to policy H7. Policy H7 concerned new dwellings in the countryside unrelated to any established village, while policy H7A addressed limited infilling in villages not identified in policy H5. Land within a village but outside its policy limits was not automatically within either category.
5. The inspector therefore erred by treating the site as subject to a rewritten version of policy H5 and by concluding that development contrary to policy H7 was prohibited when policy H7 did not apply.
6. The inspector also misconstrued structure-plan policy DP15. Read with policy DP9, it distinguished “open countryside” from land within or adjoining settlements. The proposition that “countryside” and “open countryside” were interchangeable did not properly construe the adopted structure plan.
7. The errors were material. The decision had to be quashed and remitted so that the policies and the related material considerations could be reconsidered.

The judgment itself records that the inspector refused the planning appeal following the second respondent’s refusal of permission. The High Court quashed the inspector’s decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration. Permission to appeal was refused, but the time for applying to the Court of Appeal was extended to fourteen days after a transcript became available.