Stroud District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

A planning policy must be interpreted objectively from its language and context. Where a development plan allocates a site for a particular use, matters of principle which would constrain the form, scale or type of development should ordinarily appear in the plan itself. Site allocation does not grant automatic permission: the proposal must still be assessed against applicable development criteria and material considerations. A challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is concerned with legality, not the merits of planning judgment. The court will not substitute its view for that of the planning decision-maker where the decision-maker has understood and evaluated the relevant policies and evidence.

The claimant applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the Secretary of State’s decision granting planning permission to Urbaser Balfour Beatty for an energy-from-waste facility at Javelin Park, Gloucestershire.

Gloucestershire County Council had refused permission. The appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State’s determination because of the proposal’s significance for energy policy. Following a public inquiry, the Inspector recommended that permission be granted. The claimant argued that the Secretary of State and Inspector had misinterpreted the Gloucestershire Waste Core Strategy, particularly as to height and scale, and had failed to consider relevant evidence.

1. Claim dismissed. The claimant failed to establish any legal error, irrationality, failure to consider relevant matters or procedural impropriety within section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. The Waste Core Strategy formed part of the development plan. Policy WCS6 allocated Javelin Park for strategic residual recovery facilities. Properly interpreted, the policy established the acceptability in principle of such a facility at the allocated site, subject to the stated criteria. It did not impose a height or scale limit, nor did it require development to avoid breaching the skyline or to minimise visual impact to the greatest possible extent.

3. The allocation did not amount to automatic planning permission. The proposal remained subject to the General and Key Development Criteria in Appendix 5 and to assessment under Policies WCS14 and WCS17, including landscape, visual impact and design. The Inspector was entitled to distinguish objections directed to the principle of development at the site from objections concerning the proposal’s actual landscape and visual effects.

4. The court applied the principle that development-plan policies must be properly understood and objectively interpreted from their wording and context, as stated in Tesco Stores Limited v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13. The Inspector correctly interpreted the Waste Core Strategy and had considered the relevant evidence. His conclusions were substantially matters of planning judgment.

5. The Secretary of State was the decision-maker and was entitled to agree with the Inspector while retaining the freedom to depart from his recommendations. The decision letter, read fairly, as a whole and by an informed reader, showed that the evidence on height, scale, landscape and design had been considered. The court could not substitute its own planning assessment for that of the Secretary of State.