Town and country planning – National Planning Policy Framework – Green belt – Respondent applying for planning permission to replace grass runway at aerodrome with hard runway – Application refused as being inappropriate development in green belt – Whether permissible to take non-green belt harms into account under para 88 of NPPF when deciding whether harm outweighed by other considerations – Appeal allowed
The respondent operated an aerodrome on a site within the metropolitan green belt near Redhill, Surrey. It applied for planning permission to build a hard runway at the aerodrome to replace the existing grass runways. Planning permission was refused by the second and third appellants, as the relevant local planning authorities, and, in February 2014, by a planning inspector on appeal.
In deciding whether very special circumstances existed to justify the inappropriate development in the green belt, the inspector was required, under 88 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to ask whether “the potential harm to the green belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations”. In finding that that test was not met, the inspector took into account the appearance and landscape character of the area, quality of life for local communities, highway capacity and safety, the impact on the mode of travel to the proposed facility and airspace safety.
The respondent brought a successful challenge to that decision under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The judge held that the “other harms” to be considered under para 88 of the NPPF were limited to harms to the purposes and objectives of the green belt and that the inspector had erred in taking into account planning harms of other kinds, such as harm to landscape character, adverse visual impact, noise disturbance or adverse traffic impact. He held that the considerations taken into account by the inspector should not be considered cumulatively in circumstances where none of them individually was of the level prescribed in the NPPF as justifying a refusal of planning permission: see [2014] EWHC 2476 (Admin); [2014] PLSCS 263. The appellants appealed.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The protection of the green belt around the main urban areas was one of the 12 “core planning principles” in the NPPF. It was not intended to exclude non-green belt harm from “any other harm” in para 88 of the NPPF. To do so would make it less difficult for applicants and appellants to obtain planning permission for inappropriate development in the green belt, because the task of establishing “very special circumstances” would be made less difficult; all the considerations in favour of granting permission would be weighed against only some, rather than all, of the planning harm that would be caused by an inappropriate development. Had the government intended to make such a significant change to green belt policy in the NPPF, a clear statement to that effect would be expected. There was no such statement and all indications were to the contrary. While there had been some detailed changes to green belt policy in the NPPF, protecting the green belt remained one of the core planning principles; the fundamental aim of green belt policy to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land open, the essential characteristics of green belts and the five purposes that they served all remain unchanged. There was no material difference between paras 3.1 and 3.2 of PPG2 and their successors in paras 87 and 88 of the NPPF. Although the text had been reorganised, all of its essential characteristics remained the same. The one respect in which policy had changed was that the NPPF now placed a presumption in favour of sustainable development at the heart of national planning policy. However, that was not intended to effect any change in green belt policy since the presumption in favour of development gave way where specific policies in the NPPF, such as those relating the land designated as green belt, indicated that development should be restricted: R (on the application of River Club) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2009] EWHC 2674 (Admin); [2010] JPL 584 (on the meaning of “other harm” in para 3.2 of PPG2) considered.
Further, it was common ground that non-green belt considerations, such as employment and economic advantages, could be included in the weighing exercise as “other considerations” when deciding whether “very special circumstances” existed to outweigh the presumption against inappropriate development in the green belt. An imbalance would be created if non-green belt benefits had to be weighed in the balance while non-green belt harms had to be left out of account. If all the “other considerations” in favour of granting permission had to go into the weighing exercise, there was no sensible reason why “any other harm”, whether of a green belt or non-green belt kind, should not also go into that exercise.
There was no question of such an approach resulting in an applicant or appellant being “cheated” of the benefit of another policy in the NPPF that prescribed a threshold for refusal of permission on a particular ground, such as transport or biodiversity. If the threshold for a refusal of planning permission on such grounds was not met in the case of a proposed development outside the green belt, that did not mean that any adverse impact on those grounds had to be ignored when a decision was taken whether to grant or refuse planning permission. Harmful impacts that would not individually justify refusal of permission still had to be taken into account as other “material considerations” when determining a planning application or appeal, with the weight to be given to them being a matter for the inspector to decide in the light of the policies set out in the NPPF. The position was no different if development was proposed within the green belt, save that the “very special circumstances” test would apply if the proposal was for inappropriate development. If, having carried out the necessary balancing exercise, the Inspector concluded that “very special circumstances” did not exist, she would refuse planning permission on the ground that the proposed development did not comply with national policy to protect the green belt set out in the NPPF.
James Maurici QC and Richard Kimblin (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first appellant; Stephen Whale (instructed by the legal departments of Tandridge District Council and Banstead Borough Council) appeared for the second and third appellants; Christopher Katkowski QC and Alistair Mills (instructed by Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co LLP) appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister
