The Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor

In interpreting Green Belt policy, the examples following “such as” in a category of permitted material changes of use are not open-ended. An undescribed use must share the relevant common characteristics of the listed examples. Residential use is not within paragraph 150(e) of the National Planning Policy Framework merely because it preserves openness and does not conflict with Green Belt purposes.

Paragraph 150(e) must also be read with the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. A traveller site involving the stationing of a residential caravan in the Green Belt is inappropriate development. A decision-maker who treats it as appropriate without addressing that policy framework commits an error of law.

The claimant local planning authority challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 an inspector’s decision granting permission for a private gypsy and traveller site comprising one mobile home and associated development.

The Secretary of State conceded that the decision contained an error of law. The second defendant sought to uphold it, arguing that the words “such as” in paragraph 150(e) of the National Planning Policy Framework permitted any land-use change preserving Green Belt openness and avoiding conflict with Green Belt purposes. The central issues were whether residential caravan use fell within paragraph 150(e), and how that provision interacted with paragraph 16 of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites.

The claim succeeded. The inspector’s decision letter was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Secretary of State.

1. Planning policy is interpreted as a question of law, read in its context and with its practical purpose in mind. The court must distinguish interpretation from the decision-maker’s judgment in applying the policy to the facts. Those principles, drawn from Tesco v Dundee CC and Canterbury CC v SSCLG, did not permit the inspector to disregard the wider policy framework.

2. Paragraph 4 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires the Framework to be read with the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. Paragraph 16 of that policy states that traveller sites, temporary or permanent, in the Green Belt are inappropriate development. The inspector therefore erred by treating paragraph 150(e) as capable of making the proposed traveller site appropriate without addressing that policy.

3. Independently, residential use does not fall within paragraph 150(e). Applying the reasoning in Prestcold v Minister of Labour, examples introduced by “such as” indicate the relevant character of the wider category. The listed examples concern uses closely aligned with outdoor sport or recreation, cemeteries and burial grounds, and similar land-use changes. They do not establish an unrestricted category in which any residential use qualifies whenever openness is preserved.

4. The policy history confirmed that paragraph 150(e) was introduced to address the difficulty identified in Timmins v Gedling concerning particular changes of use, rather than to create a broad new category of residential development in the Green Belt. R (Samuel Smith) v North Yorkshire CC concerned the different question of openness in the context of mineral extraction and did not support the broader interpretation. The discrimination argument under Article 14 read with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 therefore did not arise.

This was a first-instance statutory challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The judgment does not state any prior appellate decision in the same proceedings.