R (Cherkley Campaign Ltd) v Mole Valley DC and another [2014] EWCA Civ 567

“16…he supporting text consists of descriptive and explanatory matter in respect of the policies and/or a reasoned justification of the policies. That text is plainly relevant to the interpretation of a policy to which it relates but it is not itself a policy or part of a policy, it does not have the force of policy and it cannot trump the policy….”

Chichester District Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Queen’s Bench Division [2018] EWHC 2386 (Admin);

“56.  The distinction between the “policies” set out in the NP and its “aims” is, in my judgment, in principle a rational one. Mr Williams and Mr Garvey referred me to decision of the Court of Appeal in R(Cherkley Campaign Ltd) v Mole Valley DC and another [2014] EWCA Civ 567 . There, the Court of Appeal distinguished between the “policies” and the supporting text. The latter might be relevant to the interpretation of the “policies” contained in a development plan but whether a proposal conformed with, or conflicted with, the plan was to be determined by reference to the policies it sets out.

59… The inspector did not, in my judgment, err in law by drawing an irrational distinction between this “aim” and the “policies” expressed in Policy 1 and Policy 2 of the NP….”