Damon Moore v Somerset Council

Planning policy must be interpreted through a combination of linguistic and purposive analysis. Explanatory text may assist interpretation even where it does not itself constitute policy. The interpretation of local-plan policy is for the court. National policy concerning town-centre planning applications does not determine the formulation or interpretation of a local plan. Where a policy requires at least half of an identified town-centre-use requirement to be delivered through redevelopment of a specified area, that requirement must be applied to the specified area rather than to the wider town centre where the wording and policy purpose support that construction.

The claimant sought judicial review of outline planning permission granted for mixed-use development at Saxonvale, Frome. The challenge concerned the meaning of the fifth indent in the third bullet of Core Policy 6 of the local plan. The central issue was whether the requirement to deliver at least half of the flexible office/studio space requirement applied to Saxonvale specifically or to the Frome Town Centre Development Area as a whole.

1. Claim allowed. The planning permission granted on 30 August 2022 was quashed.
2. The interpretation of local-plan policy was a matter for the court. A less rigorous approach was appropriate than for legislation, but explanatory text could be used to assist interpretation, applying the principle stated by Richards LJ in R (oao Cherkley Campaign Ltd) v Mole Valley DC [2014] EWCA Civ 567.
3. Core Policy 6 was not strictly an allocation policy and did not require every town-centre use to be located within the Frome Town Centre Development Area. Part of the wider requirement could therefore be met outside the town centre.
4. Nevertheless, the third bullet of Core Policy 6 concerned town-centre redevelopments, including Saxonvale, and was directed principally to the objectives identified in its indents. The more natural reading of the poorly drafted fifth indent was that at least half of the 11,850 m² town-centre-use requirement had to be delivered within Saxonvale. The reference to Saxonvale was not confined to the FETE site.
5. This construction was supported by the policy’s purpose. Town-centre uses were preferably to be delivered within the town centre, and Saxonvale comprised the predominant area available for redevelopment. Applying the requirement to the town centre as a whole would permit up to half of the relevant use to be provided outside the town centre without identifying where that development should occur.
6. Paragraph 24 of NPPF, 2012 was relevant to individual planning applications, but not to the formulation or interpretation of local plans. It could not displace the linguistic and purposive construction of Core Policy 6.