Gazelle Properties Ltd, R (on the application of) v Bath and North East Somerset Council & Ors

When construing a planning decision letter, the court must read the letter and any adopted inspector’s report fairly as a whole, using a straightforward and practical approach. A decision on a called-in planning application determines planning merits and does not ordinarily make a formal or conclusive determination of the precise extent of a lawful existing use. Where the decision-maker adopts an inspector’s reasoning, the adopted reasoning and the decision letter must be read together. Particular references to “the site” should retain their ordinary meaning unless the context clearly requires otherwise.

The claimant sought judicial review of an inspector’s ruling in enforcement appeals concerning alleged unauthorised changes of use at a former fuller’s earth processing site. The inspector had concluded that a 2003 decision letter established a Class B2 fallback only for the buildings and hardstandings, not the whole application site.

The 2003 decision had refused planning permission for redevelopment after considering the likely consequences of continued industrial use if permission were refused. The central issue was whether, properly construed, that decision letter confined the lawful Class B2 fallback to the buildings and hardstandings or treated it as extending across the application site.

1. The claim succeeded. The inspector’s ruling on the extent of the B2 fallback was quashed. The court did not determine the precise extent of any lawful use, which remained for determination in the enforcement appeal.
2. The proper approach was to read the inspector’s report and the First Secretary of State’s decision letter fairly and as a whole, with common sense and without excessive semantic analysis. The decision letter could be read with the inspector’s report because it expressly adopted the report’s conclusions and reasons.
3. The inspector had correctly understood the planning-unit question as one of fact and degree, applying the working approach in Burdle v Secretary of State for the Environment [1972] 3 All E.R. 240. However, he had not expressly found that the relevant planning unit was smaller than the whole application site or that the lawful B2 use was confined to the buildings and hardstandings.
4. The references to “the site”, “the entire site” and “part of the site” in paragraph 35 of the decision letter were significant. They were consistent with the inspector’s report and ordinarily meant the application site, rather than only the buildings and hardstandings. The First Secretary of State had therefore not expressed or implied a conclusion that the lawful B2 use was restricted to those physical areas.
5. The 2003 decision was made on planning merits. It considered the practical likelihood of fallback uses but did not formally determine the precise legal extent of any lawful use. That issue remained open for evidence and determination in the enforcement proceedings.