Whiteknights Consultants Ltd, R (on the application of) v First Secretary Of State & Anor

Local planning policies regulate the use and development of land, not its ownership. A policy preventing the sub-division of garden ground to permit a new dwelling is concerned with the subsequent development, even where the land was divided before the policy took effect. The policy must be construed purposively, in the light of its justification and the statutory planning framework. An inspector must determine an appeal in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations justify another outcome, but the weight given to competing considerations is a planning judgment. A decision letter need not address every submission separately. It is sufficient if, read as a whole, it gives an informed reader clear and intelligible answers to the principal issues.

The claimant sought under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash an inspector’s dismissal of its appeal against refusal of planning permission for a dwelling and garage in Castle Terrace, Berwick-upon-Tweed.

The local plan prohibited the sub-division of garden ground in the relevant area to allow construction of a new dwelling. The claimant argued that the plot had been divided and sold before the policy was adopted, that the development would not create an undesirable precedent, that other material considerations justified departing from the policy, and that the inspector had failed to give adequate reasons.

1. Application refused. The inspector’s decision was lawful and the claimant was ordered to pay the first defendant’s costs, summarily assessed at £3,000. Permission to appeal was refused.
2. Local plan policies operate within the statutory framework governing development and material changes of use. A planning authority cannot prevent the subdivision or sale of garden land as such. It can regulate construction or a change of use on the subdivided land. Accordingly, policy S30 was concerned with construction of a new dwelling on subdivided garden ground, not with the earlier act of subdivision itself.
3. The policy had to be read purposively with its reasoned justification. The inspector was therefore entitled, and in substance required, to treat the fact that the garden had been subdivided and sold in 1994 as irrelevant to the application of a policy adopted in 1999.
4. The inspector correctly considered precedent and the possibility that permission would encourage further attempts to develop plots in the area. Although he accepted that the proposed dwelling would not materially harm the immediate character or appearance of the surroundings, he was entitled to regard the policy as establishing a baseline against further erosion of the area’s character. The general encouragement in PPG3 to make efficient use of urban land did not amount to special justification for overriding policy S30.
5. The inspector had section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in mind. The weight to be given to policy, precedent, housing objectives and other material considerations was a planning judgment open to him.
6. Reasons need be clear and intelligible, but need not address every ground individually. Read as a whole, the decision letter enabled an informed reader to understand that the inspector rejected the second refusal reason, accepted the policy objection, and found no special circumstances sufficient to justify departure.