Pertemps Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

National Green Belt policy in the NPPF establishes closed categories of development that is not inappropriate. A local plan policy may support the reasonable expansion of established businesses without creating an additional exception to that rule. Such support remains material when assessing whether very special circumstances clearly outweigh the substantial harm caused by inappropriate development. A planning decision-maker must interpret development-plan policy correctly, give proper weight to relevant policy support, and explain any departure from a sufficiently analogous earlier decision, particularly where the earlier decision reveals the local planning authority’s own interpretation of the policy.

Pertemps sought to quash an inspector’s dismissal of its appeal against refusal of permission for a free-standing office building in the Green Belt at Meriden Hall. The inspector concluded that the proposal was inappropriate development under the National Planning Policy Framework and conflicted with Policy P17 of the Solihull Local Plan. He found that the benefits did not clearly outweigh the harm.

The claim under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 alleged that the inspector had misinterpreted and misapplied Policy P17 and had failed to take account of the council’s earlier permission for Jaguar Land Rover’s Green Belt development at Damson Parkway.

1. Application allowed. The inspector’s decision was quashed.
2. Planning policy is interpreted objectively by reference to its language and context. Supporting text is relevant to construction but cannot override the policy itself. The court must avoid a strained interpretation designed to reconcile provisions that do not naturally bear that meaning. The inspector had therefore erred in law in construing Policy P17.
3. Paragraphs 89 and 90 of the National Planning Policy Framework contain closed categories. A free-standing new office building outside those categories is inappropriate development under both national policy and Policy P17. The policy’s provision for the reasonable expansion of established businesses does not create a further exception to that principle.
4. Policy P17 nevertheless gives development-plan support, in principle, to proposals enabling the reasonable expansion of established businesses in the Green Belt where the proposal makes a significant contribution to the local economy or employment and appropriate mitigation can be secured. That support applies whether the proposed development is appropriate or inappropriate. Where development is inappropriate, it is a potentially powerful consideration in the assessment of very special circumstances.
5. The inspector had to decide whether the proposal met the qualifying criteria and give due weight to Policy P17 when applying the paragraph 88 balance: substantial weight to Green Belt harm, including harm by reason of inappropriateness, could be outweighed only by considerations clearly outweighing that harm. His reasoning did not show that he had undertaken that exercise with a proper understanding of the policy.
6. The council’s Jaguar Land Rover decision was a material consideration because it manifested the council’s own interpretation and application of Policy P17 to inappropriate Green Belt development. The inspector was not bound to reach the same result, but, if departing from that interpretation and approach, he had to explain why. His failure either to take the decision into account or to explain the departure was a further error of law.

The council refused planning permission on 29 August 2013. The claimant appealed to the Secretary of State, and the inspector dismissed the appeal on 22 October 2014. The Administrative Court allowed the section 288 claim and quashed the inspector’s decision.