CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR-DAVIES (R on the application of) v WANDSWORTH

A planning permission must be interpreted objectively through the eyes of the reasonable reader, having regard to the natural and ordinary meaning of its words, the permission as a whole, its planning purpose, incorporated documents and common sense. Extrinsic material may be considered where the permission is ambiguous, but private or post-permission communications will generally carry little or no weight. Approved drawings form part of the permission where incorporated by the grant or conditions. Where the wording of a condition and the drawings point in different directions, the court may use relevant public documents, such as the officer’s report, to resolve the ambiguity. The permission must be interpreted as granted, even if it failed to give effect to the planning authority’s subjective intention.

The claimants, who lived next door to a property in Wandsworth, challenged the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action concerning a roof extension. The planning permission included a condition requiring windows in the side elevations at loft level to be obscure-glazed and non-opening. The claimants argued that the condition applied both to a side-facing dormer window and an overlooking rooflight. The Council considered that it applied only to the dormer window. The central issue was the proper interpretation of the permission, including the relationship between the condition, the approved drawings and the officer’s report.

1. Claim dismissed. The Council had not erred in concluding that Condition 3 applied only to the dormer window on Side Elevation 1, and not to the rooflight.
2. The permission comprised the permission notice, schedule, conditions and the approved drawings. Drawing A03 Revision P3 was also expressly incorporated by Condition 2.
3. The court applied the objective approach stated in Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2016] 1 WLR 85. The reasonable reader considers the natural and ordinary meaning of the words, the consent as a whole, its purpose, relevant conditions and common sense. The reasonable reader has some knowledge of planning practice, but is not assumed to be a planning professional or lawyer.
4. The natural meaning of “window” could include a rooflight. Condition 3, its plural wording and its height qualification therefore supported the claimants’ interpretation. However, the annotation on the approved drawing pointed exclusively to the dormer window. That drawing formed part of the permission and unequivocally indicated the narrower scope.
5. Because the condition and drawings gave competing indications, the permission was ambiguous. The court could therefore consider the officer’s report. It was a public document and stated that the side-facing dormer windows, rather than the rooflights, would be obscure-glazed. The report supported the Council’s interpretation.
6. Post-permission Council emails and a private message between the parties were inadmissible or of very limited evidential value for interpretation. They were not public documents and included ex post facto rationalisations.
7. The court was concerned with the meaning of the permission, not whether the planning officer’s amenity assessment was flawed. A permission may fail to reflect the authority’s subjective intention because of drafting error. The claim for judicial review was dismissed.

First-instance judicial review claim in the Planning Court. The judgment records that permission to apply was initially refused on the papers but granted at an oral renewal hearing before a Deputy Judge of the High Court on 7 October 2021.