Wrotham Parish Council v The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors

Planning policy must be interpreted objectively, by reference to its language, context and practical purpose. The meaning of a policy is a legal question, but its application to the facts and the weight given to material considerations remain matters for the planning decision-maker.

For the Grey Belt definition, the footnote 7 exclusion is assessed against the development applied for in development-control decisions. It is not necessary to assess the effect of hypothetical development generally. Under paragraph 155(b) of the NPPF, the question is whether there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed, rather than for each separate component. Whether particular elements are necessary is ordinarily a matter of planning judgment.

Wrotham Parish Council challenged an Inspector’s decision allowing an appeal under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 78, and granting outline permission for a 24-hour truck stop for up to 197 HGVs in the Green Belt.

Two grounds remained. The first concerned the meaning of Grey Belt land and whether footnote 7 policies had to be assessed against the specific proposal or development generally. The second alleged errors in applying Government Circular 01/2022, particularly whether the fuel station was required and whether there was an unmet need for the proposed facility.

1. Ground 1 dismissed. Planning policies are interpreted objectively according to their language, read in context and with regard to their practical purpose. They are not construed as statutes or contracts. Interpretation is for the court, while application and planning judgment are for the decision-maker.
2. The Grey Belt definition applies to both plan-making and decision-taking. The references to restricting development naturally concern plan-making, whereas refusing development concerns the particular application in development control. The Inspector was therefore correct to assess whether footnote 7 policies provided a strong reason for refusing or restricting the development applied for, rather than hypothetical development generally. This approach avoided an uncertain and artificial assessment of hypothetical schemes and advanced the permissive purpose of paragraph 155 NPPF.
3. The parties’ shared interpretation at the inquiry could not determine the legal meaning of the policy. Interpretation is a matter for the court.
4. Ground 2 dismissed. The Inspector was entitled to treat the proposal as a paragraph 86 facility under Circular 01/2022 because the Site shared a common boundary with the highway at a junction with the Strategic Road Network. On that classification, the fuel station was a mandatory requirement for the relevant facility.
5. In any event, paragraph 155(b) requires need for the type of development proposed, not a separate need assessment for every component. The Inspector found an unchallenged need for the proposed HGV capacity and amenity building, and rationally concluded that refuelling at the facility was essential because alternative arrangements would cause conflict and unnecessary vehicle movements.
6. The claim was dismissed.