TW Logistics, R (on the application of) v Tendring District Council & Anor

Development-plan policies must be interpreted objectively, according to their language and context. A court should not use the drafting history or the author’s subjective intention to alter their meaning.

Broad policies may serve competing planning objectives. The court should not strain their language to create complete harmony or impose an unwarranted priority. Where policies pull in different directions, the planning authority decides their relative weight as a matter of planning judgment, subject to public-law control.

A duty to have regard to a specified consideration requires conscientious consideration of it as relevant or potentially relevant. It does not make that consideration exclusive or give it automatic precedence.

The appellant operated Mistley port, within a conservation area and the Mistley Urban Regeneration Area. Tendring District Council adopted a Conservation Area Management Plan to meet its statutory conservation-area duty. The appellant contended that proposals concerning buildings at the quayside, including Thorn Quay Warehouse, were inconsistent with saved policies in the Local Plan.

Silber J rejected the judicial-review challenge: [2012] EWHC 1209 (Admin). The appellant appealed with permission, maintaining that policy LMM1 required the quayside to remain first and foremost for port-related use and prohibited the proposed regeneration approach.

The central issue was whether the challenged parts of the management plan were objectively inconsistent with the Local Plan.

1. Appeal dismissed. The challenged parts of the Conservation Area Management Plan were not inconsistent with the Local Plan.
2. The court applied the objective approach to interpreting development plans explained in Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13. The public is entitled to rely on the adopted documents as published. Their drafting history, including an inspector’s comments on an earlier draft, and the subjective view of their author could not govern their meaning.
3. Policy LMM1(iii) protected existing port operations. Policy LMM1(iv) required the Council to have regard to the potential for port uses of existing buildings before allowing a change of use. That required conscientious consideration of the factor. It did not require port use to be exhausted or excluded before non-port redevelopment could be permitted, nor did it establish that the quayside was first and foremost for port use.
4. Policy ER3 did not alter that construction. It was a general employment policy, whereas LMM1 was the specific policy for the Mistley Urban Regeneration Area and balanced several interests. In any event, if the policies pointed in different directions, their relative weight was for the planning authority’s planning judgment. The Local Plan also encouraged mixed-use development in the wider regeneration area and envisaged redevelopment of Thorn Quay Warehouse if LMM1 was observed.
5. The management plan did not make planning policy or determine the future use of any building. Its challenged passages addressed the character and appearance of buildings and possible conservation-area improvements. Any future planning decision would still have to be made in accordance with the Local Plan. The appellant’s viability assertion did not compel a different construction: viability was an expert matter and the evidence did not establish the proposition advanced.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — dismissed the appeal and upheld the rejection of the judicial-review challenge.
• High Court, Administrative Court — Silber J rejected the challenge to the Conservation Area Management Plan: [2012] EWHC 1209 (Admin).