The Supreme Court has given the green light to the development of a quarry in the green belt in North Yorkshire in a case that has flip-flopped its way through the courts.
The case is a victory for North Yorkshire County Council, which initially gave Darrington Quarries permission to expand its operations. It is a loss for Samuel Smith’s Old Brewery, the Tadcaster-based brewer and champion of the green belt, which opposed the development.
The case examines the circumstances in which mineral extraction can take place in the green belt, and the nature of “openness” when green belt developments are proposed.
Darrington Quarries, which has been quarrying in the area since 1948, plans to extend its 25ha site by a further 6ha and extract about two million tonnes of crushed rock over a period of seven years.
In 2018, the Court of Appeal quashed the planning permission granted by the council to Darrington Quarries, ruling that its planning officer erred when she recommended the development would not have a visual impact on the green belt. It said that it was for the planning authority to come to its own conclusion on that issue.
However, in a ruling handed down today, all five judges on the panel disagreed and unanimously reversed the ruling, finding that the concept of “openness” in national planning policy relating to the green belt is meant to stop urban sprawl, and should not stop all forms of development.
“On a proper reading of the NPPF in its proper historic context, visual quality of landscape is not in itself an essential part of openness for which the green belt is protected,” Lord Carnwath, the Supreme Court judge who wrote the ruling, said.
“The concept of ‘openness’ in paragraph 90 of the NPPF is a broad policy concept which is the counterpart of urban sprawl and is linked to the purposes to be served by the green belt. Openness is not necessarily a statement about the visual qualities of the land, nor does it imply freedom from all forms of development… The question is, therefore, whether visual impact was a consideration which, as a matter of law or policy, was necessary to be taken into account, or was so obviously material as to require such direct consideration.”
In the circumstances of the quarry, they did not, the court found.
“The relatively limited visual impact fell far short of being so obviously material that failure to address it expressly was an error of law,” he wrote.
“These were matters of planning judgement and not law,” he said.
Fergus Charlton, legal director at UK law firm TLT, said that today’s ruling is helpful.
“The Supreme Court has helpfully given applicants and decision-makers guidance on how to approach the assessment of harm to green belt openness,” he said.
“By ruling that openness is not necessarily a statement about the visual qualities of the land and ruling that protecting openness does not imply freedom from all forms of development, the court has confirmed that ‘not inappropriate’ development can proceed: reversing what was a worrying direction of travel.
“Practically, in cases where the proposed development has a relatively limited visual impact it is not necessary to include visual impact in the openness assessment. Where a proposal is exposed to wider sight lines and is more prominently visible, the openness assessment will more likely include a visual component. In any case the weight given to that assessment is a matter of planning judgment.
“The Supreme Court judgement continues to protect the green belt from ‘inappropriate’ development and urban sprawl.”
R (on the application of Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) and others) (respondents) v North Yorkshire County Council (appellant)
Supreme Court (Lady Hale, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales), 5 February 2020
