Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v Selby District Council & Anor

Inappropriate development in the Green Belt is harmful by definition. Permission may be granted only where the harm arising from inappropriateness, together with any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations amounting to very special circumstances. Personal circumstances must be personal to, and relied upon by, the applicant. A desire to expand a moderately profitable business, without evidence of hardship, unmet need or lack of alternative premises, will ordinarily be insufficient. Harm to Green Belt openness is not confined to visual impact; the effect on the Green Belt’s functions must also be considered.

The claimant challenged planning permission granted by Selby District Council for the retention of a building used in connection with an equestrian centre within the Green Belt. The development had previously been the subject of quashed planning decisions. The claimant argued that the council had misunderstood the significance of earlier planning history, misdirected itself as to very special circumstances, and treated harm to Green Belt openness as limited to visual impact. The central issues were whether the planning officer’s report applied the correct Green Belt policy test and whether the resulting decision was legally rational.

1. Claim allowed and permission quashed. The planning officer’s report was materially flawed and the council’s decision was unlawful.
2. Under Part 3 of Planning Policy Guidance 2 (1995), inappropriate development in the Green Belt is harmful by definition. The applicant must show very special circumstances which clearly outweigh both the harm caused by inappropriateness and any other harm.
3. Personal circumstances may constitute very special circumstances, but they must be personal to and relied upon by the applicant. The earlier applications in 1991 and 1992, which had failed on highway grounds, could not constitute sufficient very special circumstances after the material change in policy in 1995, particularly since the applicants had not relied on them before that change.
4. The evidence did not establish personal hardship, an unmet need for the business, or the absence of alternative premises. A desire to expand a moderately profitable equestrian business could not rationally constitute very special circumstances sufficient to overcome Green Belt policy.
5. Green Belt openness is not limited to visual impact. The decision-maker must consider other effects, including impacts on the functions of the Green Belt. The report’s exclusive focus on limited visibility failed to undertake that assessment.
6. The report, read as a whole, sought to construct very special circumstances while underplaying the policy obstacles. The committee had therefore been materially misdirected. Costs were awarded to the claimant in the agreed sum of £26,500 inclusive of VAT; no order was made as to the interested parties.