The case involved a planning application for the construction of a 92,000 square metre glasshouse extension on a site in the Green Belt and the consent by Epping Forest District Council (the Council). The site also lies within Lee Valley Regional Park and is close to a protected wetland and a site protected for rare and vulnerable bird species.
At the heart of the case was the question of what constitutes 'inappropriate development' in the Green Belt, the answer to which will be of particular interest to local planning authorities and rural landowners.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) section 9 sets out the national policies on 'Protecting Green Belt land'. The policies include a recognition that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence (para 79). Applications for 'inappropriate development' in the Green Belt should only be approved in very exceptional circumstances (para 87) and substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt when considering applications (para 88).
Aside from this strong protection of the Green Belt, paragraph 89 of the NPPF provides some exceptions to inappropriate development when it comes to new buildings. These include buildings for agricultural use and extensions to existing buildings provided it is not disproportionate to the size of the existing building.
Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (the RPA) applied for judicial review of the Council's decision to grant permission for the glasshouse. The claim was dismissed but the RPA appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The RPA argued against the decision on several grounds, including that the NPPF policies giving protection to the Green Belt were relevant to decision making for agricultural buildings even though they are not classed as inappropriate development. It argued that harm to openness of the Green Belt, when considered under paragraph 88, is stated to be relevant when considering 'any planning application' including those not classed as inappropriate.
The court disagreed and dismissed the claim. Reference to 'any planning application' in paragraph 88 had to be read in light of the exceptions in paragraph 89. Therefore, construction of agricultural buildings will not in itself be inappropriate development, regardless of the harm it might cause to the Green Belt.
The court also considered it relevant that other exceptions to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, such as facilities for outdoor recreation and those listed in paragraph 90, are specifically caveated in the NPPF as being not inappropriate 'provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt'. If the government had intended construction of agricultural buildings to be subject to the same caveats it would have been made clear in the NPPF.
The importance of this case has less to do with the facts of the case and more about the rules of interpretation the court chose to apply to the NPPF. The law has not changed but landowners looking to develop in the Green Belt now have greater certainty on whether their proposals are sound under Green Belt policy.
It is worth remembering, however, that many other material planning considerations can impact on a development which may otherwise be appropriate for the Green Belt, including noise, visual impact, and habitat sensitivity.
The case is important for local authorities in both their plan making and decision taking functions. As more Green Belt applications come forward, with the possibility of court challenges, it will be interesting to see how many local plans are found to be inconsistent with this interpretation of NPPF Green Belt policy. Local authorities would be advised at the very least to consider the implications of this case in any local plan review.