Fordent Holdings Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Under the National Planning Policy Framework, a material change of use is development within section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In the Green Belt, development is inappropriate unless it falls within the closed categories in paragraphs 89 or 90, although compliance with paragraph 81 may be relevant when assessing very special circumstances. Paragraph 89 applies to facilities for outdoor sport or recreation only where the proposal preserves openness and does not conflict with Green Belt purposes. The court may correct errors of law, failures to consider material matters and inadequate reasons, but may not re-evaluate planning merits or the weight assigned to competing considerations.

Fordent Holdings Ltd challenged, under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, an inspector’s dismissal of its appeal against refusal of outline permission for a caravan and camping site in the Green Belt. The scheme involved a change from agricultural use and several permanent buildings. The inspector treated the change of use and buildings as inappropriate development, found that the benefits did not clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm, and dismissed the appeal. The claimant challenged the construction of paragraphs 81, 89 and 90 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the treatment of economic benefits, and the adequacy of the inspector’s reasons.

1. The claim was dismissed. A material change of use is development under section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and has the same meaning when used in the National Planning Policy Framework. It can therefore constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

2. Paragraphs 87, 89 and 90 must be read together. Paragraph 90 contains a closed list of other forms of development capable of being not inappropriate. Paragraph 89 contains a closed list of exceptions or potential exceptions concerning new buildings. Development outside those categories is inappropriate and may be permitted only where very special circumstances exist.

3. A change of use may fall within paragraph 81 because providing opportunities for outdoor sport or recreation can involve creating a new use. That does not make the change of use automatically appropriate. Compliance with paragraph 81 is instead a material consideration in the very special circumstances assessment and must be weighed with the identified Green Belt harm and other considerations.

4. For paragraph 89, “it” refers to the facilities contemplated by the proposal. Facilities for outdoor sport or recreation are potentially appropriate only if they preserve Green Belt openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. Those concepts must be applied in the context of the nature and purpose of the development.

5. The inspector had given weight to economic growth and employment benefits. The absence of the word “significant” in the decision letter did not establish an error of law. The court could not interfere with the inspector’s evaluation of the weight of material considerations absent irrationality.

6. The reasons challenge failed. The decision letter, read straightforwardly and without excessive legalism, explained the conclusion on encroachment. Any possible error concerning the approach to openness was not the subject of the pleaded challenge.

First-instance application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The judgment does not state any prior appeal concerning this claim.