Morland, R (on the application of) v Persimmon Homes (Wessex) Ltd

Planning permission must be construed from the permission itself, including conditions and plans or documents expressly incorporated into it. Extraneous material is irrelevant where the permission is clear and unambiguous.

An illustrative master plan may allow flexibility in boundaries, scale and highway alignment without losing its significance as an indication of the permitted land uses. A substantial area identified for district-centre uses cannot instead be used for non-ancillary residential development. Where that change is sought, a new outline application is required.

The claimant sought judicial review of the council’s decision to register an application for approval of reserved matters concerning community, health, parking, residential and open-space development at Westbury.

The council accepted that the decision should be quashed. The interested party maintained that the proposed development fell within the scope of the relevant outline planning permission. The central issue was whether the permission and its incorporated master plan permitted substantial residential development in an area indicated for a district centre.

1. Construction of the permission. The court construed the outline permission by reference to the permission itself, its conditions, and the plans and documents expressly incorporated into it. Since the permission was clear, extraneous material was not relevant.
2. Effect of the master plan. The master plan was illustrative rather than definitive in every detail. It therefore allowed minor boundary revisions, highway realignments and adjustments to the size or precise location of the district centre. It was nevertheless incorporated into the permission and continued to indicate the broad allocation of land uses.
3. Permitted uses. The outline permission permitted district-centre uses, including community uses and A1, A2, A3, D1 and D2 uses. Its conditions allowed only an element of ancillary residential development. They did not permit a substantial amount of residential development unrelated to the district centre in the area shown for district-centre uses.
4. The reserved-matters application proposed substantial residential development in the area allocated for the district centre. It therefore fell outside the scope of the outline permission. The appropriate course, if changed circumstances justified more residential development, was a new outline application rather than a detailed application under the existing permission.
5. The judicial review claim succeeded. The claimant’s costs were summarily assessed at £800 against the council up to the point at which it conceded that its decision should be quashed, and £900 against the interested party thereafter.