Stop Portland Waste Incinerator v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors

In a statutory review of a planning decision, the court must interpret development-plan policies objectively and in context, but must respect the planning judgment entrusted to the decision-maker. A spatial strategy is not necessarily confined to directing development to particular locations. Its broader objectives, including capacity, self-sufficiency, proximity, flexibility and environmental effects, may be balanced.

Policy 4(a) required comparison of an unallocated site with available allocated sites capable of serving the relevant waste-management need. That comparison could properly consider actual proposals and uses on the allocated sites. Adequate reasons need address the principal controversial issues, but need not separately analyse every policy sub-paragraph. A legal error will not lead to quashing where the decision would necessarily have been the same without it.

The claimant, a campaign group, challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the Secretary of State’s decision to grant planning permission for an energy recovery facility at Portland Port.

The Secretary of State had recovered the developer’s appeal from Dorset Council’s refusal and accepted the appointed Inspector’s recommendation following a public inquiry. Permission to bring the statutory review was granted on Ground 1, concerning interpretation and reasons under Policy 4 of the Bournemouth, Christchurch, Poole and Dorset Waste Plan, but refused initially on Grounds 2 and 3. The issues were renewed at the substantive hearing.

1. Outcome. The claim under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was dismissed on Ground 1. Permission to apply for statutory review was refused on Grounds 2 and 3.
2. Development-plan policies must be interpreted objectively according to their language and context. They are policy statements, not statutory or contractual texts. Their application and the weight given to competing considerations remain matters of planning judgment, subject only to public-law grounds such as irrationality.
3. The Inspector correctly understood Policy 4 and the spatial strategy. The strategy was not limited to locating residual-waste facilities in South East Dorset. It also pursued waste-hierarchy objectives, self-sufficiency, proximity, flexibility, environmental protection and provision of sufficient capacity. The Inspector was entitled to balance the locational advantages of Canford against the Green Belt harm and other disadvantages, and to find that the Portland proposal had advantages over the allocated sites.
4. Policy 4(a) required identification of the waste-management need addressed by the proposal and consideration of whether an available allocated site could serve that need. If so, the decision-maker could compare the unallocated site with the allocated site. A rational assessment of availability and capacity could take account of actual proposals or uses. The policy did not require an abstract cumulative comparison with all four allocations where the evidence and inquiry focused on Parley and Canford.
5. The reasons in the Inspector’s Report and Decision Letter were intelligible and adequate. The decision-maker was not required to address separately every sub-paragraph of Policy 4 or every material consideration. The alleged aviation, carbon-capture and incinerator-bottom-ash errors were either not established or involved planning judgment. In any event, applying the stringent Simplex test, the decision would necessarily have been the same because the decisive consideration was the Green Belt restriction at Canford.

High Court (Planning Court): Eyre J granted permission on Ground 1 but refused permission on Grounds 2 and 3. On renewal and the substantive hearing, Lang J dismissed the claim on Ground 1 and refused permission on Grounds 2 and 3.