Mills v The Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government

A development-plan policy must be interpreted objectively according to its wording, read with relevant supporting text. Supporting text may explain or justify a policy, but cannot add requirements or extend its geographical scope. Where a policy contains separate sentences, they should be read together if that produces a coherent construction. The court, rather than an inspector, determines the legal meaning of planning policy; matters of planning judgment remain for the inspector. An error concerning one issue will not justify quashing a decision where the inspector’s conclusion on another independent issue inevitably required the same outcome.

The claimant sought permission to change Hawkern Cottage from an annexe or holiday cottage into an unrestricted residential dwelling. East Devon District Council refused permission, relying on accessibility, countryside and holiday-accommodation policies. On the claimant’s statutory appeal, the Inspector dismissed the appeal, concluding that Policy E18 of the East Devon Local Plan applied outside the named seaside resorts and that the loss of holiday accommodation was unacceptable.

The claimant challenged the Inspector’s decision under s.288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The central issues were the proper interpretation and geographical scope of Policy E18, and whether the Inspector’s error required her decision to be quashed.

1. Policy interpretation. The court held that the meaning of a development-plan policy is a question of law for the court. The policy must be read objectively and as written, with its supporting text. Supporting text is relevant to interpretation and justification, but is not itself policy and cannot extend or contradict the policy.
2. Scope of Policy E18. The first sentence of Policy E18 expressly applied to change of use or redevelopment in the named seaside resorts. The second sentence was naturally read as applying to the same geographical area. The supporting text did not extend the policy to the whole district or to Otterton. Reading the second sentence as having a wider scope would create significant gaps and difficulties, including leaving redevelopment outside the resorts unrestricted. Policy E18 therefore did not apply to Hawkern Cottage.
3. Inspector’s error. The Inspector had erred in applying Policy E18. The court nevertheless had to consider whether the error affected the outcome. The Inspector’s unchallenged conclusion that the site was inadequately accessible, conflicting with Strategy 7 and Policies D8 and TC2, independently meant that the proposal was not in accordance with the development plan.
4. Effect of the error. The error concerning holiday accommodation did not affect the accessibility assessment. The identified material considerations, including social, economic and environmental benefits, did not outweigh the harm. The Inspector would inevitably have dismissed the appeal under s.78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The claim was therefore dismissed, despite the legal error.

1. East Devon District Council: planning permission refused on 6 February 2018.
2. Planning Inspectorate: the claimant’s appeal under s.78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was dismissed by decision dated 2 November 2018.
3. High Court (Administrative Court): the challenge under s.288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 established an error in interpreting Policy E18, but the claim was dismissed because the error could not have affected the outcome.