Great Trippetts Estate Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

In assessing development within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a planning decision-maker must consider both the development’s intrinsic effect on the landscape and its visual effect. Screening and landscaping cannot be disregarded by applying a general rule that they cannot make harmful development acceptable. Their effectiveness is a material consideration in deciding whether harm remains and whether it is outweighed by the development’s benefits or need. The decision-maker must also assess evidence of need accurately and avoid irrelevant comparisons. A court may not substitute its planning judgment, but may quash a decision where the decision-maker has applied an erroneous legal approach. A separate planning issue remains valid where it was addressed on its own terms.

The claimant challenged decisions concerning unauthorised equestrian developments at Great Trippetts Estate, situated in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Three appeals were before the court: two under sections 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 concerning enforcement notices for a tennis court and a manège, and one under section 288 concerning refusal of planning permission for the manège.

The Inspector found that the manège harmed the character and appearance of the AONB and rejected the proposed landscaping and screening as insufficient to overcome that harm. She also concluded that the facility was not essential to the polo enterprise. The central issue was whether she had adopted the correct approach to harm, mitigation, visual impact and need.

1. The appeals concerning the manège were allowed and the Inspector’s decision was quashed insofar as it related to the manège. The appeal concerning the tennis court was dismissed.
2. Under section 85(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and the applicable planning policies, great weight had to be given to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB. Development had to be assessed according to the particular factual circumstances.
3. The Inspector was entitled to find that the manège, viewed without landscaping, was incongruous and harmful. That was a planning judgment with which the court could not interfere merely because it might have reached a different view.
4. However, the Inspector erred by treating complete screening as incapable of overcoming the harmful effect of a development in an AONB. Visual impact was an important aspect of harm. The fact that harm was not publicly visible would not necessarily make development acceptable, but the effectiveness of screening remained a material consideration.
5. The Inspector also failed properly to assess the evidence of need. Reliance on the number of high-goal teams without comparable manèges was an unreliable comparison because it was unclear whether those teams required facilities for arena or snow polo.
6. The Inspector’s approach to the manège was also inconsistent with her treatment of the exercise track, where limited visual impact and appropriate planting were treated as capable of conserving the AONB’s natural beauty.
7. The tennis court had been considered separately. The error identified in relation to the manège did not establish that the Inspector had adopted the same erroneous approach to the tennis court.
8. The claimant was awarded three quarters of its costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed. Permission to appeal was refused or required to be sought from the Court of Appeal as applicable.

The judgment describes appeals from the Inspector’s decisions upholding enforcement notices, subject to permission for the exercise track, and refusing planning permission for the manège. This court quashed the decisions concerning the manège and dismissed the appeal concerning the tennis court.