Stroud v North West Leicestershire District Council

Local planning policies must be construed as a whole. Supporting text may assist construction, but cannot modify or replace the wording of the policy. A policy protecting the loss of shopping and other main town centre uses may be directed to changes from shopping to non-shopping uses, rather than every change from one town-centre use to another.

A local shop may constitute a key service where its loss could materially affect quality of life, having regard to the nature of the service and the availability of alternatives. However, the issue must reasonably arise from the material before the decision-maker. The public sector equality duty does not require unnecessary formality or box-ticking. Due regard is sufficient where the protected-characteristic issue is substantively raised and properly considered.

The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant planning authority’s decision to grant permission for the change of use of a local shop from Class A1 to a hot food takeaway. He argued that the authority had failed to consider Local Plan policies Ec12 and IF2, and had failed to comply with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 in relation to elderly residents.

The authority accepted that the policies were not expressly considered but argued that Ec12 did not apply to the proposed use and that IF2 was not materially engaged. It also argued that the relevant equality issues had been sufficiently addressed. The central questions were whether the policies applied on their proper construction and whether the decision-making process discharged the statutory equality duty.

1. Policy Ec12. The construction of local planning policies is a matter of law for the court. The National Planning Policy Framework definition of main town centre uses was broad and was not confined to the wording of the Use Classes Order. Hot food takeaway could properly be regarded as a retail use or as a leisure or entertainment use. It was therefore a main town centre use.
2. Policy Ec12 was not engaged by the proposed change. Read with Policy Ec10 and its supporting text, the more natural construction was that Ec12 addressed loss of shopping or other main town centre uses through a change to a non-main town centre use. Policy Ec10 governed changes from shopping to non-shopping uses and did not require the six-month vacancy and marketing condition in Ec12. Supporting text could assist construction but could not produce an impermissible reading of the policy.
3. Policy IF2. A shop could in principle be a key service under the policy. Whether it was one depended on the nature of the existing service, the potential impact of its loss on people living nearby, and the availability of reasonably convenient alternative provision. The material before the committee did not substantively raise an issue of material inconvenience or lack of alternatives. The authority therefore was not required to address IF2 expressly.
4. The decision-maker need not address every representation individually. It must address the matters that reasonably appear to be the main issues on the material before it. The court could not use later evidence to make its own factual assessment of the alternatives.
5. Public sector equality duty. The duty to have due regard under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 did not require a formal assessment, express reference to the duty, or box-ticking in every case. It required proper consideration where implications for a protected characteristic were substantively raised. The references to elderly users were recorded, but no material case was advanced that elderly residents would be unable to use, or materially disadvantaged by having to use, alternative shops. The duty was therefore discharged.
6. The claim was dismissed.