Dartford Borough Council v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

National planning policy must be interpreted objectively. Its language is read in its ordinary meaning and proper context, but it is not construed as though it were a statute or contract. Clear wording should not be displaced by searching for tensions elsewhere in the policy or by consulting earlier policies and ministerial statements.

Under the National Planning Policy Framework, the exclusion of land in built-up areas, including private residential gardens, applies only to land within built-up areas. A private residential garden outside a built-up area is not excluded from previously developed land merely because it is a garden.

A planning inspector allowed an appeal against the refusal of permission to use land within the residential curtilage of Shirehall Farm as a private gypsy and traveller caravan site. The farm was in the Green Belt but outside a built-up area. The inspector treated the site as previously developed land under the glossary to the National Planning Policy Framework.

Dartford Borough Council challenged that interpretation. It argued that every private residential garden was excluded from previously developed land, irrespective of whether it was in a built-up area. A Deputy High Court Judge rejected the challenge. The council appealed on the sole issue of the proper meaning of “previously developed land”.

1. Appeal dismissed. The National Planning Policy Framework exclusion for “land in built-up areas such as private residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments” applies only to land situated in built-up areas. The words “such as” introduce examples of the preceding general expression. They do not extend the exclusion to private residential gardens outside built-up areas: per Lewison LJ, Gloster LJ agreeing. [8]–[9], [26]
2. National planning policy is interpreted objectively according to the language used in its proper context. It is not construed as if it were a statutory or contractual text. Broad policies may pull in different directions, and an interpreter should not search for possible conflicts to detract from otherwise clear wording. [6]–[9]
3. The alleged tensions within the National Planning Policy Framework did not justify a different construction. Its Green Belt policies accommodate limited redevelopment of previously developed sites where there is no greater impact on openness. The policy against isolated homes did not conflict with the definition because development within the curtilage of an existing permanent structure would not be isolated. The policy encouraging reuse of previously developed land expressly adopted that defined expression. [10]–[16]
4. The National Planning Policy Framework is a new, self-contained public statement of national policy. Previous guidance may remain relevant in an appropriate case, but it cannot be invoked to manufacture an ambiguity where the current language is clear. Ministerial statements concerning an earlier policy likewise cannot detract from the clear terms of the current framework. The public and prospective developers are entitled to rely on the published document without investigating its provenance and evolution. [17]–[24]
5. The inspector therefore correctly treated the site as previously developed land. The fact that it was a private residential garden did not bring it within the exclusion because it was not in a built-up area. [3]–[5], [24]–[26]

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The council’s appeal was dismissed in [2017] EWCA Civ 141. The court upheld the interpretation that the exclusion for private residential gardens applies only to land in built-up areas.
2. High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Mr Charles George QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, rejected the council’s challenge to the planning inspector’s decision. No citation is stated in the judgment.
3. Planning inspector: The inspector allowed an appeal against the council’s refusal of planning permission and decided that the site was previously developed land.