The High Court in Bright Horizons Family Solutions Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government [2019] EWHC 14 (Admin) recently examined the meaning of the term ‘school’ within Schedule 2, Part 7, Class M of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO). The judgement provides interesting comments on the definition of ‘school’, and specifically addresses the question of whether a nursery can be classified as such.
Background
The facts are relatively simple. The claimant, Bright Horizons, operates a number of nurseries across the country. On 18 January 2017, they sought from the Local Planning Authority, Watford Borough Council, a Certificate of Lawful Development in respect of a proposed development by the installation of two linked portable cabins in the garden of the premises, to increase the indoor space available for the nursery. They relied upon the permitted development rights in Class M in making such application.
The current version of the GPDO is the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. The scheme of the Order is that, by article 3, planning permission is granted for any development described within Schedule 2 as permitted development.
Part 7 Class M provides as follows subject to certain exceptions and conditions (which are not recited):
“Class M – extensions etc for schools, colleges, universities and hospitals
Permitted development
M. The erection, extension or alteration of a school, college, university or hospital building.
Development not permitted.”
Before a decision was given by the council, the cabins were installed. The council subsequently refused the application, deciding that the nursery was not a school and therefore the development fell outside the GPDO. In dismissing an appeal by Bright Horizons, the planning inspector agreed with the council’s interpretation of Class M.
Decision
The High Court dismissed the claim, affirming that the inspector correctly interpreted the law and that a nursery was not a school within its meaning in Class M of the GDPO.
Of general interest is the judge’s analysis of what is the definition of ‘school’ in planning use context, where he noted:
“There cannot, I think, be any doubt that "school" in the sense with which I am concerned is an institution for the provision of education. If used without any qualification (compare "adult school", "ballet school", "dog training school") the word means an institution where a general education is provided for young human beings, typically on the basis of attendance at a specified place for a number of hours on a considerable number of days per year. … the principal purpose needs to be that set out above …
It is also clear that the provision of education does not make an institution a school. "A ride on an elephant may be educational" (Re Lopes [1931 2 Ch 130 at 136-7, per Farwell J), but that does not mean that a zoo is a school. Similarly, museums and concert-halls are not schools; and they do not become schools within the ordinary unqualified meaning of that word by having substantial outreach or educational activities. Further, only limited assistance can be gained from the institution's name. The Vale of York Academy is a School, but the London Hairdressing Apprenticeship Academy is not. Winchester College is a school, but Oriel College is not”.
On the specific issue of the levels of education, the judge further noted:
“As the word is used in the United Kingdom (there is a distinction here from other English-speaking countries, particularly in North America) a university or other institution of tertiary education is not a "school". Such institutions may have parts that carry a name using that word with some qualification ("law school", "school of cosmetology") but the ordinary use of the word "school" does not comprise institutions whose object is the education or training of people above the age of about 18. One may use phrases such as "schools and colleges" or "schools and universities" without being suspected of tautology.
That proposition, which in my judgment is also beyond doubt, raises the question of the meaning of the commonly-used phrase "school-age". As it is generally understood, that phrase encompasses the period in a young person's life beginning with the requirement to go to school and ending with the age at which the person is too old to have education in a school. The period before school age, and institutions which may cater for children of such an age, are often called, without any apparent ambiguity or difficulty, "pre-school".
It appears from the above that an institution concerned with children below school age is unlikely to be regarded as properly called, without qualification, a "school". It may be called a "nursery school", but that does not entitle it to be called simply a 'school' any more than being called a "law school" does. And the provision of some education to its denizens will not make the institution a "school" (compare zoos, above); even having education as its main purpose will not make the institution a "school" (compare universities, above). If an estate agent said that at the end of the road there was a good school, one would not expect to find only a nursery, however good. The services provided in such an institution are "pre-school".
For these reasons, in my judgment, the unqualified use of the word "school" does not in its ordinary meaning include a nursery”.
Lesson: The case highlights the very limited definition of the word school in the GPDO, and that anything other than a school in its general understanding will qualify.
