Fox Land and Property Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

A saved development plan policy continues with its original meaning and effect. Material required for its proper interpretation, including supporting text and a proposals map identifying its geographical scope, remains relevant even though that material is not itself policy.

The expiry of an unsaved general policy does not remove a Green Belt designation where saved policies continue to apply to the Green Belt and the proposals map and supporting text identify its boundaries. Express reference to the proposals map in each saved policy is unnecessary where recourse to the map is inherent in the statutory planning scheme.

A developer sought permission for up to 165 dwellings on agricultural land shown as Green Belt in the Castle Point Local Plan. The local authority refused permission. An inspector recommended allowing the ensuing appeal, but the Secretary of State dismissed it by applying national Green Belt policy.

The Administrative Court dismissed the developer's challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The developer appealed on the single permitted ground that the Green Belt had ceased to exist when Local Plan Policy GB1 expired, although Policies GB2 to GB7 had been saved under Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

The central issue was whether the proposals map and supporting text continued to identify the geographical scope of the saved policies after Policy GB1 ceased to have effect.

1. Appeal dismissed. Richards LJ, with whom Underhill and Christopher Clarke LJJ agreed, held that the Castle Point Green Belt remained in existence. The saved Local Plan policies continued to apply to it, and the national Green Belt provisions could therefore operate.

2. A proposals map is not itself policy. Under section 36(6)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, however, it illustrates the detailed policies and identifies their geographical scope. It may therefore be consulted to obtain a proper understanding of a policy. A policy need not refer expressly to the proposals map before the map can perform that function.

3. The reasoning in The Queen on the application of Cherkley Campaign Limited v Mole Valley District Council [2014] EWCA Civ 567 applied by analogy. That case established that saving a policy preserves supporting text relevant to its interpretation, so that the policy continues with unchanged meaning and effect. The same reasoning applies to a proposals map insofar as it is necessary to understand the geographical scope of a saved policy.

4. Before the transitional provisions took effect, the proposals map identified the Green Belt referred to in Policies GB1 to GB7. Policy GB1 did not itself define or create the Green Belt. Its express reference to the proposals map did not distinguish it materially from Policies GB2 to GB7, because consultation of the map was equally necessary to identify the land governed by each policy.

5. When Policy GB1 expired, the position under the remaining saved policies was unchanged. Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 preserved the proposals map and relevant supporting text insofar as they informed the meaning and territorial application of those policies. Paragraph 2.8 of the supporting text also continued to establish that the Green Belt comprised the land identified on the proposals map.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed in [2015] EWCA Civ 298. The court upheld the Administrative Court's conclusion that the Green Belt remained in existence and that the saved policies continued to apply.

• Administrative Court, Queen's Bench Division: Blake J dismissed the developer's challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by an order following judgment delivered on 17 January 2014. No citation is stated.

• Secretary of State: By a decision letter dated 26 June 2013, the Secretary of State rejected the inspector's recommendation, dismissed the planning appeal and refused permission.