This appeal requires the court to consider, among other things, the meaning and effect of the Government’s planning policy in England for the construction of agricultural buildings in the Green Belt.
Lindblom LJ explained: ‘A fundamental principle in national policy for the Green Belt, unchanged from PPG2 to the NPPF, is that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is ‘inappropriate’ development and should not be approved except in ‘very special circumstances’, unless the proposal is within one of the specified categories of exception in the ‘closed lists’ in paras 89 and 90 . . The distinction between development that is ‘inappropriate’ in the Green Belt and development that is not ‘inappropriate’ (ie appropriate) governs the approach a decision-maker must take in determining an application for planning permission. ‘Inappropriate development’ in the Green Belt is development ‘by definition, harmful’ to the Green Belt – harmful because it is there – whereas development in the excepted categories in paras 89 and 90 of the NPPF is not.’
Judges:
Treacy, Underhill, Lindblom LJJ
Citations:
[2016] EWCA Civ 404
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Lee Valley Regional Park Authority v Epping Forest District Council Admn 13-Apr-2015
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v North Yorkshire County Council SC 5-Feb-2020
The Court was asked whether the appellant county council, as local planning authority, correctly understood the meaning of the word ‘openness’ in the national planning policies applying to mineral working in the Green Belt, as expressed in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning
Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.563072