GPS Estates Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Planning policies must be interpreted objectively, from their language read in context. Where a policy makes planning permission conditional on specified criteria, each criterion ordinarily concerns the particular development for which permission is sought.

Evidence that existing parking capacity substantially exceeds current demand may properly support a finding that a proposed off-airport car park does not meet a long-term need that cannot be met on the airport. A restrictive policy requiring accordance with a surface-access strategy remains effective even if rigorous application limits further development. Changed circumstances may instead justify departure from the policy.

GPS Estates Ltd operated an off-airport “meet and greet” parking service at Luton Airport. Luton Borough Council served an enforcement notice under section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, alleging that the use conflicted with Policy LLA2 of the Luton Local Plan.

An inspector dismissed GPS’s section 174 appeal. He found no persuasive evidence that the Latimer Road development met a long-term parking need which could not be met on the airport, and found that it did not accord with the Surface Access Strategy. GPS succeeded in the Administrative Court, where the matter was remitted: [2014] EWHC 806 (Admin).

The Secretary of State appealed. The central issue was whether criterion [A] of Policy LLA2 concerned a general need for additional parking capacity or the need met by the particular development proposed.

Decision

1. Appeal allowed. The court held that the inspector had correctly applied Policy LLA2 and that the High Court had erred in setting aside his decision.
2. Planning policies are interpreted objectively by reference to their language in context. Applying that approach, criterion [A] concerned the particular development for which permission was sought. The reference to “the development”, together with the drafting of criteria [B] to [E], showed that all the criteria concerned that development, rather than a general unmet demand for airport parking.
3. The inspector was entitled to rely on the evidence of both capacity and occupancy at the on-airport car parks. Low occupancy was a useful indicator of demand. It supported the conclusion that existing capacity, about three times current demand, would remain adequate despite projected passenger growth. The 2006 outline permission for the Napier Park scheme was evidence of an earlier assessment of need, but it did not prevent the inspector from reaching the contrary conclusion on the later evidence.
4. Any failure to address more explicitly the lapse of the Napier Park permission was immaterial. The inspector identified the correct issue under criterion [A] and reached a conclusion open to him on the material before him.
5. Criterion [B] remained a separate and effective objection. A planning authority may, subject to ordinary public-law constraints, adopt highly restrictive policies. The fact that a rigorous application of the Surface Access Strategy might prevent further off-airport parking did not make the criterion inapplicable. The inspector was entitled to find that the Latimer Road use would undermine the strategy’s aim of encouraging public transport and did not accord with it.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal and upheld the inspector’s dismissal of the planning appeal.
• High Court, Administrative Court: Allowed GPS’s appeal under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and remitted the matter to the Secretary of State: [2014] EWHC 806 (Admin).
• Planning inspector: Dismissed GPS’s appeal against the enforcement notice under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.