Westminster City Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Planning conditions must be read benevolently and in the context of the permission as a whole. The court must avoid technical nitpicking, but cannot imply an additional requirement into a condition that is clear on its face and does not require it to make sense. Where the decision expressly states that detailed requirements govern the implementation of specified conditions, those requirements may form part of the conditions even if not repeated in each condition. A condition is enforceable where the decision, read as a whole, makes its obligations sufficiently clear.

The local planning authority brought an appeal under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act against an inspector’s decision granting retrospective planning permission for a mixed retail and café use.

The inspector imposed conditions controlling fumes, smells, noise and vibration. The decision also set out a timetable for submitting, approving and implementing the relevant schemes, but the timetable was not repeated in the numbered conditions themselves. The central issue was whether the timetable formed part of the conditions and was enforceable.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court’s power under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act was to uphold or quash the inspector’s decision; it could not correct any error in the decision.
2. Conditions must be construed benevolently, without undue technicality, and by reference to the grant of permission as a whole. They must nevertheless remain capable of enforcement. The court cannot imply into an otherwise intelligible condition an additional obligation which is not there.
3. The decision in R (on the application of Sevenoaks District Council) v First Secretary of State [2004] EWHC 771 (Admin) illustrated that limitation. In that case, an additional obligation could not be imported into a condition which was clear on its face and did not require the obligation to make sense.
4. The present case was materially different. The inspector’s introductory wording expressly stated that the works required by conditions 2 and 3 had to be implemented in accordance with the following strict rules. Those rules included the four-stage timetable for submitting schemes, obtaining approval and completing the works. The inspector had also explained the need for a strict timetable because the permission was retrospective and the use had already begun.
5. Read as a whole, the decision left no doubt that the timetable formed part of conditions 2 and 3. The conditions were therefore enforceable, and the planning authority could enforce them if appropriate. The appeal was dismissed, with costs payable to the Secretary of State in the sum of £4,700.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): statutory appeal under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act; appeal dismissed.
2. Planning inspector: decision dated 21 November 2011 allowed the enforcement appeal and granted conditional planning permission, subject to controls on operating hours, fumes, smells, noise and vibration.