Mid Suffolk District Council v Clarke

A planning permission must be construed by reference to its operative grant, including documents expressly incorporated into it. The description of the proposed development does not, by itself, define the scope of the permission. Where the grant incorporates the application, particulars and plans, those materials may be used to identify the authorised use. On the documents in this case, permission for a replacement cooking plant formed part of the continuing agricultural use of the farm for pig rearing. It did not authorise use as an industrial rendering plant.

The Council sought an injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, alleging that the defendant was using a replacement cooking plant at Rookery Farm for an unauthorised industrial rendering use. The defendant relied on planning permission 882/98, granted in 1999, and argued that the words describing the development as the erection of a replacement cooking plant conferred unrestricted permission for its use.

The preliminary issue was the proper construction and scope of that permission, including the significance of the operative grant and the application particulars and plans incorporated by it.

1. The preliminary issue was decided for the Council. The 1999 permission authorised a replacement cooking plant as part of the continuing agricultural operation at Rookery Farm. It did not authorise an industrial rendering plant.
2. The description of the proposed development was not the operative grant. It was impermissible to isolate the words describing the erection of a replacement cooking plant and treat them as conferring unrestricted use. The court had to examine the operative part, which granted permission in accordance with the application particulars and plans submitted.
3. The general principle that a planning permission is construed from the permission itself did not prevent reference to incorporated documents. Following the approach identified in Slough Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and Oury (1995) 70 P&CR 560, incorporation made the application and accompanying plans part of the permission.
4. The incorporated materials showed that the application concerned a pig farm and a replacement cooking plant intended to continue the pig-rearing operation. The application did not specify an industrial process. Condition 7, concerning cooked feed and by-products, was consistent with that agricultural use and indicated that cooked food was to be used in connection with pig farming at the site.
5. The relevant change of use arose from the commercial destination of the product, rather than from a different cooking process or the nature of the material cooked. The permission therefore did not cover the present industrial use. Further consideration might be required on the precise terms of any injunction or on directions and clarification.