2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves the interpretation of Green Belt policy within the National Planning Policy Framework concerning 'any other harm'. The court had to determine whether this term included non-Green Belt related harm such as landscape character, visual impact, and noise disturbance. The Planning Inspector's decision to dismiss the development proposal was initially quashed by a judge. However, on appeal, Lord Justice Sullivan held that 'any other harm' includes any planning-relevant harm, not just Green Belt harm, and accordingly set aside the judge's order, reinstating the Inspector's original decision.
Judgment
Lord Justice Sullivan:
Introduction
On the 9 th October 2014 we allowed this appeal, set aside the Judge’s Order quashing the Inspector’s decision, and dismissed the Respondent’s application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the Act”). We said that we would give our reasons in due course. These are my reasons for allowing the appeal.
Green Belt policy
The protection of the Green Belt around our main urban areas is one of the twelve “Core planning principles” in the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”) (paragraph 17). Paragraphs 87 and 88 of the Framework say that:
“87. As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
88. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm , is clearly outweighed by other considerations.” (emphasis added)
The Issue
Do the words “any other harm” in the second sentence of paragraph 88 of the Framework mean “any other harm to the Green Belt” as submitted by the Respondent, and found by the Judge, or do they include any other harm that is relevant for planning purposes, such as harm to landscape character, adverse visual impact, noise disturbance or adverse traffic impact, as submitted by the Appellants?
The Inspector’s decision
In a decision dated 18 th February 2014 a Planning Inspector dismissed the Respondent’s appeal against the refusals of planning permission by the Second and Third Appellants for the construction of a hard runway to replace the existing grass runways, together with ancillary infrastructure, at Redhill Aerodrome. The Aerodrome, which straddles the boundary between the two local planning authorities, is located in the Metropolitan Green Belt.
There is no challenge to the Inspector’s conclusion that the proposal was inappropriate development in the Green Belt. In paragraph 19 of her decision the Inspector said:
“Submissions were made as to whether the Green Belt balancing exercise should follow the approach set out in the River Club judgment. Even though the judgment was made on the policy set out in Planning Policy Guidance 2, the wording in the Framework is very similar and I intend to fo