Barchester Healthcare Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

The expression “residential development” in a planning policy is not confined to development within Use Class C3 unless the policy says so. A development within Use Class C2 may fall within that expression where its ordinary meaning and the policy’s purpose support that construction. The Use Classes Order distinguishes between C2 and C3 uses, but that distinction does not determine the meaning of general policy language. Policies directing residential development towards sustainable locations may properly apply to residential care homes, as well as to dwelling-houses.

The claimant challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 an inspector’s dismissal of its appeal against refusal of permission for a 56-bed care home in Leigh, Kent. The proposed use was accepted to be within Class C2 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.

The inspector treated Policy H10A of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan as relevant. That policy restricted residential development in category A villages, including Leigh, to minor development or infilling. The claimant argued that H10A concerned only Class C3 dwelling-houses and was irrelevant to a Class C2 residential institution. The issue was whether the inspector had erred in law by applying H10A.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The inspector’s decision was lawful and the claimant was ordered to pay the first defendant’s costs, summarily assessed at £4,256.
2. Policy H10A did not expressly refer to Use Class C3 or to the Use Classes Order. Its reference to “residential development” therefore had to be construed according to its ordinary meaning and the policy’s underlying purpose.
3. The distinction between Class C2 and Class C3 was recognised, and a C2 use could not simultaneously be a C3 use. That distinction did not prevent a C2 development from being residential development for the purposes of H10A.
4. A residential care home provides residential accommodation, albeit with care and associated services. The inspector was entitled to regard it as residential in character. Applying H10A to such a development was consistent with the planning objective of locating development in which people live in sustainable locations.
5. The claimant’s narrower construction would exclude residential uses outside Class C3, including care homes, houses in multiple occupation and some student accommodation, despite comparable planning concerns in rural settlements.
6. R (on the application of Tendring District Council) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2008] EWHC 2122 (Admin) did not determine whether residential accommodation with care could constitute “residential development” under H10A. It therefore did not assist the claimant.

The judgment does not state any earlier judicial decision in the same proceedings. The claim was brought directly under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the inspector’s decision.