Summers Poultry Products Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Under PPG2, inappropriate development in the green belt is harmful by definition. Very special circumstances require a qualitative planning judgment whether the harm, including additional harm to openness and the purposes of the green belt, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. A statutory need to comply with regulatory requirements may be a special circumstance, but it does not create an entitlement to development regardless of green belt constraints. Loss of openness on previously-developed land may constitute encroachment into the countryside. The assessment remains a matter of planning judgment. Guidance concerning major developed sites may be relevant to assessing openness without operating as a freestanding policy test where its conditions are not met.

The claimant operated a poultry slaughterhouse in the green belt. It challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 an inspector’s dismissal of its appeal against refusal of planning permission for a substantial extension. The extension was intended to enable compliance with food hygiene and animal welfare regulations.

The challenge alleged errors concerning very special circumstances, encroachment into the countryside, reliance on Annex C of PPG2 and Annex B of PPS3, and failure to address Local Plan Policy COM.16. The central issue was whether the inspector’s decision disclosed an error of law.

1. The claim was dismissed. Permission to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds had no real prospect of success. The claimant agreed to pay the Secretary of State’s costs, summarily assessed at £11,170.

2. The inspector had not treated “special” as meaning merely unusual or uncommon. Read as a whole, the decision letter recognised that regulatory compliance was a clear benefit and that failure to modernise could lead to closure and job losses. The inspector nevertheless concluded that the proposed vast enlargement, without regard to the green belt’s restrictions, was not sufficient to outweigh the extensive harm. A regulatory requirement may therefore contribute to very special circumstances, but its weight depends on the proposal and the full planning balance.

3. Loss of openness may take several forms. Development on previously-developed land, including hardstanding, can still intrude into or encroach upon the countryside where it creates additional bulk and loss of openness. Whether it does so is quintessentially a matter of planning judgment. The inspector was entitled to treat the enlarged industrial building as encroachment.

4. The inspector was entitled to refer to Annex C of PPG2 and Annex B of PPS3 when assessing whether use of previously-developed land mitigated the loss of openness. He did not treat Annex C as a freestanding policy objection. The site was not identified in an adopted local plan for the purposes of Annex C, but the guidance supplied relevant criteria for evaluating the proposal’s effect on openness.

5. Policy COM.16 was not a substantial issue requiring separate treatment. The inspector had considered the business benefits and consequences of closure, and his overall reasoning adequately addressed the material planning issues. The decision letter was intelligible, adequate and lawful when read as a whole.

First-instance judicial review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Permission to appeal was refused.