Are local planning authorities required to take into account visual impact when assessing whether a proposed development will preserve the openness of the Green Belt? In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has answered that question in the negative.
The operators of a long-established limestone quarry sought planning permission to extend its operations over an additional area of six hectares. The application was granted by the local authority on the basis of a planning officer’s advice that, when considering the development's effect on the openness of the Green Belt site, there was no obligation to take into account its visual impact.
A local objector failed in a judicial review challenge to the permission before the High Court. However, in later reversing that decision, the Court of Appeal found that the officer’s advice was defective in that it failed to make clear to councillors that, under paragraph 90 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF), visual impact is potentially relevant to the question of whether a development will preserve the openness of the Green Belt. The planning permission was quashed.
Upholding the local authority’s appeal against that outcome, the Court noted that the primary objective of Green Belt policy is to preserve openness by preventing urban sprawl. That, however, does not imply that Green Belt land should be kept free from all development. Although visual impact may, in some cases, be relevant to the question of whether the openness of the Green Belt will be preserved, the weight to be given to it is purely a matter of planning judgment.
The NPPF made clear that some forms of development, including mineral extraction, may be appropriate and compatible with the concept of openness. A quarry may not be visually attractive whilst it remains operative, but the Court noted that minerals can only be extracted where they are found and that the impact of quarrying is temporary and subject to restoration. As a barrier to urban sprawl, a quarry might be regarded as no less effective than a stretch of agricultural land.
It was relevant that the proposal was for an extension of the quarry, rather than for a wholly new project, and the officer’s advice contained no legal error in that it did not suggest that visual impact can never be relevant to openness. The development’s relatively limited visual impact fell far short of being so obviously material to the question of openness that the failure to explicitly address the point amounted to an error of law. The planning permission was restored.
R on the Application of Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) & Ors v North Yorkshire County Council. Case Number: (2020) UKSC 3