Wiltshire Council, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor

In interpreting paragraph 79(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework, “subdivision of an existing residential dwelling” refers to the subdivision of a single physical residential building, rather than the division of a wider residential planning unit containing separate buildings. The meaning of the policy is a question of law for the court, determined objectively from the language used, its context and the policy objective. The paragraph 79 exceptions are exceptions to the general policy against isolated homes in the countryside and should therefore be construed narrowly. Planning judgment remains relevant to whether particular facts fall within the properly interpreted policy, but an inspector cannot adopt an incorrect meaning of “dwelling”.

Wiltshire Council challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 an appeal decision allowing Mr Howse’s proposal to change a residential annex at Providence Cottage into an independent dwelling. The site was outside the village settlement boundary and in an isolated rural location. The Inspector concluded that the proposal fell within paragraph 79(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework because it subdivided a single planning unit comprising a dwelling and annex.

The Secretary of State did not contest the claim, while the interested party defended the decision. The central issue was whether “subdivision of an existing residential dwelling” meant subdivision of one physical building or could include subdivision of a wider residential planning unit containing separate buildings.

1. The claim succeeded. The Inspector’s decision was quashed and the appeal was to be redetermined.
2. The meaning of “dwelling” in paragraph 79(d) was a question of policy interpretation and law, not merely an issue of planning judgment. The court had to determine the objectively correct meaning of the words in their context. Only after that determination could the decision-maker assess whether particular facts fell within the policy.
3. The relevant interpretation was reached by considering the wording, context and overarching policy objective. “Subdivision of an existing residential dwelling” tended towards a single physical building. If the policy had intended to include subdivision of a residential plot or planning unit, expressions such as “residential unit” or “property” would have been more natural.
4. The context strongly supported a narrow construction. Paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework contains exceptions to the general policy against isolated homes in the countryside, which is directed to the sustainability problems of poorly located rural housing. Paragraph 79(d) therefore supported subdivision of a large existing dwelling, such as conversion into flats, but did not extend to making a separate building within the same residential unit an independent dwelling.
5. The change from “property” in the consultation draft of the 2018 Framework to “dwelling” in the final version supported the narrower reading. The Secretary of State’s asserted intention otherwise carried little weight because policy meaning is not determined by a policymaker’s later statement of intention.
6. The wider interpretation would have potentially broad consequences. Many rural properties contain outbuildings capable of ancillary residential use, so treating a planning unit as the relevant dwelling could create policy support for numerous new isolated homes. The Inspector had therefore erred in law.

The judgment was a first-instance statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The challenged decision was an Inspector’s appeal decision dated 22 November 2019 allowing Mr Howse’s planning appeal. The High Court quashed that decision and directed that the appeal be redetermined.