Manchester City Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

The Court of Appeal considered whether a planning inspector was wrong to refuse to impose conditions limiting future changes of use on the ground that such conditions were unnecessary. The appeal arose from an enforcement notice alleging a change of use of a dwellinghouse to four commercial units. The inspector granted planning permission for the development carried out but rejected the council’s proposed conditions as unnecessary, concluding the permission itself specified the permitted uses.

The court applied established principles of interpretation of planning permissions and planning law, including the concept of the planning unit and the effect of the Use Classes Order and section 55(2)(f) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It held that the decision letter, read objectively and in context, showed the inspector granted permission for four separate commercial planning units, each described by reference to a use class. Because those were separate planning units, changes of use within the same class (and other permitted changes) would not be development requiring permission and therefore would not be prevented merely by a limited description in the grant. The inspector therefore erred in law by concluding the conditions were unnecessary.

Background and parties: Manchester City Council served an enforcement notice alleging the material change of use of 3 Grandale Road from a dwellinghouse (Class C3) to four commercial units (one A1 travel and ticket agency, two B1 courier offices and one D1 therapy/medical room). Two recipients appealed to the Secretary of State under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The council opposed the appeal and, as a fallback, sought conditions limiting future changes of use.

Procedural history: The planning inspector granted planning permission for the change of use but refused the council’s proposed limiting conditions as unnecessary. The council appealed to the High Court on a point of law; Mr Justice Julian Knowles held that the inspector was wrong. The Secretary of State appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal, upholding the High Court’s conclusion.

Nature of the claim and relief sought: The council sought, by way of an appeal under section 289(1), to challenge the inspector’s refusal to impose conditions limiting the permitted uses of the premises.

Issues framed by the court: (i) Whether the inspector’s decision letter should be interpreted as granting permission for a single mixed use (a single planning unit) or for four separate planning units; (ii) whether, as a consequence, conditions limiting future changes of use were unnecessary; and (iii) whether the inspector’s approach involved an error of law.

Reasoning and outcome: The court applied the ordinary-objective approach to interpreting planning permissions, recognising that the reasonable reader is notionally informed about planning law and practice. It summarised that a mixed use does not fall within the Use Classes Order and that identification of the planning unit is a planning judgment, but one susceptible to intervention where only one conclusion is reasonably open. The court concluded that the inspector’s consistent references to 'four commercial units', to 'each commercial unit', and to uses in the plural demonstrated an intention to permit four separate planning units, each described by reference to a use class. That construction meant the grant did not itself prevent further changes of use within those classes; conditions were therefore necessary if the council wished to prohibit such changes. The inspector’s rejection of the proposed conditions as unnecessary was an error of law. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Secretary of State's appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision.

Subsidiary findings: The court rejected the Secretary of State’s argument that the references to use classes simply described components of a single mixed use; it also emphasised the established distinction between what a grant permits and what conditions forbid.

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that the inspector’s decision letter, read objectively in its legal context, granted permission for four separate commercial planning units. Because the grant itself did not prevent further changes of use within the relevant use classes, the inspector was wrong in law to treat the council’s proposed conditions as unnecessary. The High Court’s conclusion that an error of law had been made was upheld.

This is an appeal from the High Court (Planning Court, Mr Justice Julian Knowles) (CO/2314/2020, CO/2315/2020). The High Court judgment is reported at [2021] EWHC 858 (Admin). The Court of Appeal delivered judgment on 16 December 2021, dismissing the Secretary of State’s appeal ([2021] EWCA Civ 1920).