AC-2024-MAN-000347 - [2025] EWHC 2630 (Admin)

The starting point is properly to understand the controls imposed by the terms of condition 9 of the planning permission. I follow the well-established approach which is to find the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used in the condition, viewed in their particular context and in the light of common sense: see Lambeth London Borough Council v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government [2019] 1 WLR 4317 at [19].

Condition 9 essentially breaks down into four requirements –

In paragraph 5.27 of the Report, the planning officer drew the Committee’s attention to the panoply of measures proposed by the Interested Party in the Travel Plan Commitment Statement in order to overcome the reasons for refusal of the earlier planning application. Her advice in paragraph 5.38 was that those measures were robust and achievable and offered as much as a developer could reasonably achieve. The proposed measures would promote and increase travel to the quarry site using more sustainable modes of transport than the private car. Those measures were able to be secured and delivered. On that basis, the planning officer concluded that the planning application had overcome the earlier reasons for refusal and was acceptable in terms of movement and activity. The means whereby the measures proposed in the Travel Plan Commitment Statement were to be addressed and secured was through the imposition of a condition. In paragraph 5.33 of the Report, the planning officer advised that such a condition would require a final submission where details of those measures could be expanded upon and secured.

In short, the measures proposed in the Travel Plan Commitment Statement were the key factor which had enabled the planning officer to reassure members of the Committee that the objections to the development which resulted in refusal of the previous planning application were able to be overcome. The planning officer’s advice was clear that if planning permission was to be granted, those measures must be secured by condition.

In my judgment, condition 9 fulfils that that requirement. Condition 9 does not simply require the operator to submit a Travel Plan for the Defendant’s approval. It imposes a requirement on the operator to incorporate into that draft Travel Plan “the measures as stated in the submitted Travel Plan Commitment statement (March 2024)”. The submission for approval of a Travel Plan which failed to incorporate those measures would be in breach of that requirement.

Condition 9 requires the operator to submit a Travel Plan for approval prior to first use of the development. The terms of condition 9 are clear both as to the requisite components of the Travel Plan and the timing of its submission for approval. In effect, incorporation of the measures proposed in the Travel Plan Commitment Statement is stipulated as the necessary minimum in order to discharge the mandatory requirement imposed by the condition, that the operator submit a Travel Plan for approval prior to commencement of operations.

I see no obvious difficulty in taking enforcement action to secure compliance with those requirements. The requirement to incorporate the measures proposed in the Travel Plan Commitment Statement in the Travel Plan is stated in clear and precise terms. The deadline for submission of the Travel Plan is stated by reference to a readily ascertainable event. In the event that the operator were to begin to operate the tourist attraction at the quarry without having first submitted a Travel Plan for approval which at least incorporated the measures proposed in the Travel Plan Commitment Statement (March 2016), they would be in breach of condition 9 and liable to enforcement action. Such action might take the form of an enforcement notice issued under section 172 of the 1990 Act. It would also be open to the Defendant to issue a breach of condition notice under section 187A of the 1990 Act. Were the operator to persist in operating the development without having submitted a Travel Plan incorporating the measures proposed in the Travel Plan Commitment Statement for the Defendant’s approval, it would be open to the Defendant in addition to enforcement notice to serve a stop notice under section 183 of the 1990 Act.