Summary
For the purposes of para 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework, “isolated homes in the countryside” refers to homes which are physically remote from settlements, buildings or people. It does not mean homes isolated from services and facilities.
Para 55 must be interpreted objectively, by reference to its wording and context. Its purpose includes supporting the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable rural development. The presence of nearby dwellings may therefore prevent a proposed home from being isolated, even where access to services is poor. Planning inspectors retain responsibility for applying that policy in the planning balance.
Factual background
The Council challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 an Inspector’s decision allowing an appeal against refusal of planning permission for two detached dwellings at Blackmore End, Essex.
The site lay outside the village envelope and within the countryside. The Inspector accepted that the Council lacked a five-year housing land supply, treated relevant local policies as out of date, and concluded that the development was not harmful under para 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework because several dwellings were nearby.
The central issue was whether “isolated” meant physically remote from other homes and settlements, or remote from services and facilities.
Held
- Application dismissed. The Inspector had correctly interpreted and applied para 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
- Policy statements must be interpreted objectively according to their language and proper context. The court must respect the planning expertise of an inspector and must not substitute its own planning judgment for that of the decision-maker. A decision letter should be read fairly and as a whole, by an informed reader, without excessive legalism.
- The word “isolated” is not defined in the Framework. It bears its ordinary objective meaning: physically remote or far away from other places, buildings or people. The immediate context distinguishes rural communities, settlements and villages from the countryside. This indicates that the relevant distinction is primarily spatial and physical.
- The policy context does not support restricting “isolated homes” to homes remote from services and facilities. Para 55 promotes sustainable rural communities, including their social dimension. A home near other dwellings may contribute to social sustainability even where local services are limited. The policy also recognises that development in one small village may support services in another, and that transport opportunities are more limited in rural areas.
- The Council’s interpretation would add an impermissible gloss to para 55. The Inspector was entitled to find that dwellings on a road in a village, with homes immediately to the north, south and west, were not new isolated homes in the countryside. Poor accessibility by means other than the private car was a disadvantage, but did not alter that conclusion. The Inspector was also entitled to give weight to the modest economic activity likely to arise from the development and its occupants.
The court’s approach to earlier authorities
Available to signed-in members.
Appellate history
The judgment does not state any prior appellate history. The application was brought at first instance under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Appeal route
- This judgment [2017] EWHC 2743 (Admin) High Court (Administrative Court)
- Appealed to[2018] EWCA Civ 610Outcomeappeal dismissed
Key cases cited
15 authorities cited.
- Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd and another [2017] UKSC 37
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board (Scotland) [2012] UKSC 37
- Tesco Stores Limited v Dundee City Council (Scotland) [2012] UKSC 13
- Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service [2002] UKHL 38
- South Lakeland District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1992] 2 AC 141
- Dartford Borough Council v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 141
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc [2007] IRLR 246
- IGEN Ltd & Ors v Wong [2005] EWCA Civ 142
- Newsmith Stainless Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] EWHC 74 (Admin)
- Laing v Manchester City Council [2006] ICR 1519
- Meister v Speech Design Carrier Systems GmbH Case C-415/10
- Clarke Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1993) 66 P & CR 263
- South Somerset District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (1993) 66 P & CR 83
- Seddon Properties v Secretary of State for the Environment (1981) 42 P & CR 26
- Efobi v Royal Mail Group Limited
Sign in to see how the court treated each authority. A free account is enough.
Cases citing this case
14 later cases · 12 positive · 2 neutral
Most senior citing decisions:
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi [2021] UKSC 33 approved
- Jesudason v Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust [2020] EWCA Civ 73 considered
- Base Childrenswear Ltd v Otshudi [2019] EWCA Civ 1648 approved
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi [2019] EWCA Civ 18
- Raj v Capita Business Services Ltd & Anor [2019] UKEAT 0074_19_0606
- Raj v Capita Business Services Ltd & Anor [2019] UKEAT 0074_19_2006
- Science Museum Group v Wess [2019] UKEAT 0260_18_0404
- Tabidi v British Broadcasting Corporation [2019] UKEAT 0272_18_1303
- Murdock v. British Airways Plc [2018] UKEAT 0106_17_0207
- Serco Leisure Operating Ltd v Lau [2018] UKEAT 0120_17_0304 (03 April 2018)
Sign in for the full treatment table, including the other 4 cases. A free account is enough.