Redhill Aerodrome Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON
Areas of Law
- Environmental Law
- Administrative Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves a claim under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to challenge the decision of an Inspector who dismissed appeals against refusals of planning permission for constructing a hard runway at Redhill Aerodrome, located in the Green Belt. The key legal question was the interpretation of 'any other harm' under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The procedural history includes refusals by local planning authorities and subsequent amalgamation of objections into one reason rooted in Green Belt policy. The court found that the correct approach under the revised NPPF context was misapplied by the Inspector, leading to the quashing of the decision. The case cites key legal principles from Tesco Stores v Dundee City Council and interpretations of harm under the NPPF.
Judgment
Mrs Justice Patterson :
Introduction
This is a claim under s 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash a decision of an Inspector dated the 18 th February 2014. She dismissed appeals by the Claimant against refusals of planning permission by the second and third defendants to construct a hard runway to replace the existing grass runways and associated works at Redhill Aerodrome.
The application site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt.
The Claimant is the operator of Redhill Aerodrome. The second and third defendants are the relevant local planning authorities for the application site.
The appeal raises a single, but not entirely straightforward, point about the correct interpretation of “any other harm” when considering inappropriate development in the Green Belt under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
Factual background
The application site is some two-thirds within the administrative boundary of the second defendant and one-third within the boundary of the third defendant. As a result planning applications for the redevelopment of the Aerodrome were submitted to each of the local planning authorities. They refused the applications: the second defendant on the 31 st May 2013, and the 3 rd defendant on the 10 th June 2013.
In the lead up to the public inquiry held into the refusal of planning permission the second defendant amalgamated its objections into a single reason for refusal. That was that the development was inappropriate development in the Green Belt and insufficient very special circumstances had not been demonstrated. As its Development Plan policies were not up to date the second defendant relied upon the NPPF. The third defendant relied upon the NPPF and its local plan policies.
The development was locally controversial. At the public inquiry some of the local parish councils and a local action group were made rule 6 parties and were represented.
The decision letter
The Inspector set out the main issues in her decision letter in paragraphs 16-19. They read:
“ Main Issues
16. The main issues, derived from planning policy to protect the Green Belt, are:
Whether the proposal constitutes inappropriate development, taking account of the effect of the proposed engineering operations on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within the Green Belt, and
If so, whether the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of the inappropriateness, and any other harm, is