0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

High Court clarification on NPPF Green Belt policy

23 February 2017

The High Court judgment in the case of R (Boot) v Elmbridge Borough Council [2017] EWHC 12 (Admin) provides useful clarification on the approach that local planning authorities should take when applying paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to applications for development within the Green Belt.

Elmbridge Borough Council (the Council) granted planning permission for the development of a £17.9 million football and athletics facility, within the metropolitan Green Belt, on a 14 hectare former landfill site. The planning permission was granted on the basis that the proposal was not inappropriate development on the Green Belt. The planning committee found that the development fell within paragraph 89 of the NPPF which states that the “provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport” is not inappropriate development subject to the proviso that it “preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purpose of including land within it.”

In assessing the impact on openness, the planning committee found that the sports hub proposal represented appropriate development within the Green Belt, as it did not have "a significant adverse impact" on the openness of the Green Belt or the amenity of nearby properties. It was found that there would also be significant benefits in terms of outdoor sports and recreation and improving damaged land.

A judicial review claim was brought by a local resident. One of the grounds was that the council had erred in its interpretation of paragraph 89 of the NPPF by finding that development could preserve the openness of the Green Belt even if it causes harm to openness. The local resident argued that if the development causes harm to openness, even limited harm, it does not “preserve” openness and is therefore inappropriate development.

The council argued that, as a matter of planning judgment, it was open to the planning committee to find that the proposal preserved the openness of the Green Belt even if it causes limited harm on the basis that all new buildings in the Green Belt caused some harm to openness.

The High Court upheld the challenge and concluded that a development cannot “preserve” the openness of the Green Belt when it causes harm to openness. Therefore, if a new sports facility causes harm to the openness of the Green Belt, it is inappropriate development, regardless of the extent of the harm. Despite concluding that the development would have an adverse impact on openness, the council had not considered whether there were “very special circumstances” to justify the development (as required by paragraph 88 of the NPPF).

This case is a useful clarification, for local planning authorities and developers, of how the Green Belt policies contained in the NPPF should be applied. If a proposal has an adverse impact on openness, the inevitable conclusion is that it does not comply with a policy that requires openness to be maintained. In this instance, the council could not find that the development would have “limited adverse impact” on the openness of the Green Belt on one hand, and then find that the development complied with the Green Belt policy on the other. The case demonstrates that a local planning authority does not have any latitude to find otherwise, based on the extent of the impact. If less than significant harm was permitted, the NPPF would say that.

This approach to paragraph 89 of the NPPF is also likely to equally apply to paragraph 90 of the NPPF which provides that certain changes of use are not inappropriate development provided that they “preserve the openness of the Green Belt”.

training and events

16Jan

Maximising Public Sector Opportunities Workshop London office

Suppliers often comment that the public procurement regime does not provide a great deal of detail around the role of challenge during a tender process. When taking part in a public sector tender process do you really want to challenge what the contracting authority is doing as it may disadvantage your submission?

View event

22Jan

Managing procurement risks and challenges Manchester office

Have you ever received a letter challenging a regulated procurement procedure? Has your authority ever had proceedings issued against it for breach of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015?

View event

focus on...

Legal updates

Local government relationship with central government

Since the enactment of the Local Government Devolution Bill in January 2016, the Brexit vote and subsequent deal negotiations has dominated the attention of central government and as a result, devolution and departmental restructure has invariably taken a back seat.

View

Legal updates

Horizon scanning

In the first of what we hope will become a regular feature in Be Connected, Nick MacKenzie reviews what’s on the horizon for the education sector and briefly shares with you a number of themes.

View

Legal updates

Public matters - November 2019

This month includes publicity considerations for public bodies, including the health service in the pre-election period, ECJ guidance on applying exclusions to potential problem bidders, devolution deal for Metro Mayors.

View

Legal updates

Rise in the cost of borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board - to harm project viability?

The Treasury’s recent decision to raise the borrowing rate from the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) (from 1.8% to 2.8%) will inevitably increase the cost of infrastructure projects as councils face higher interest rates.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up