The interpretation of planning policy is not a matter of subjective preference or administrative convenience. It is, and must remain, a disciplined legal exercise anchored in the wording employed by the policy itself. The starting point is immutable: the written word governs. Where the policy speaks, it is to be obeyed; where it is silent, no authority may fill the void with speculative assumptions.
This reflects foundational interpretative maxims.
Quod lex voluit, lex dixit – What the law intended, it stated.
Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus – Where the law draws no distinction, neither should the interpreter.
Ubi nulla ambiguitas verborum est, non est voluntatis quaestio – Where the words are unambiguous, there is no room to question the intention.
The primary, and often exclusive, method of interpretation is the literal approach. This requires that the terms used in the policy be given their ordinary semantic and grammatical meaning, both individually and within the structure of the provision. The meaning of a policy is to be derived from its language, not from external considerations or perceived purpose. Only where the literal wording proves ambiguous or incapable of producing a workable meaning should one proceed to logical or purposive interpretation.
Where policy text employs imperative language—terms such as shall not be permitted, must comply, only if—these constitute binding commands. They are not invitations for discretion. Conversely, where the policy uses permissive or evaluative terms—may, in the opinion of, will not normally permit—a measure of judgment is conferred. Yet even such discretion must be exercised within defined legal limits, and not so broadly as to undermine the policy’s substantive framework.
Importantly, policies must be interpreted as a whole. No paragraph is to be read in isolation. One cannot elevate a sub-clause or explanation to override the operative provisions of the policy as a whole. Ex tota materia emergit sensus legis – The meaning of the policy emerges from the entirety of its content. Fragmentation or selective emphasis distorts the intention and erodes the integrity of the regulatory framework.
Where a policy stipulates cumulative requirements, each must be satisfied. A decision-maker cannot opt to treat them as alternatives unless the text explicitly permits this. The word “and” means “and”—it cannot be taken to mean “or” without trespassing upon the text’s semantic boundaries.
Furthermore, in cases of conflict between policies, established rules of interpretation apply. A specific policy prevails over a general one:
Lex specialis derogat legi generali – A special rule overrides a general one.
And a more recent policy displaces an older one, unless the latter is expressly preserved:
Lex posterior derogat priori – A later law overrides an earlier one.
Above all, there must be fidelity to the text. It is not for the administrative authority to rewrite a policy through interpretative ingenuity. Dura lex, sed lex – The law may be harsh, but it is the law. The rigour of the policy framework is not to be avoided merely because its application proves inconvenient. When a criterion is clearly set out in policy and cannot be met, the lawful response is to refuse the application, not to recast the policy’s meaning to suit the proposal.
It must be clearly understood that planning policy is not a flexible canvas upon which decision-makers may sketch desired outcomes. It is a structured expression of regulatory intent, and its application must remain faithful to its letter. Interpretation is not creation. Decision-makers are duty-bound to apply what is written, not what they wish had been written.
In short: when the policy speaks plainly, it must be obeyed. When discretion is conferred, it must be exercised reasonably and lawfully. And where the policy does not speak, the decision-maker must remain silent.
