Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors v Redhill Aerodrome Ltd

Under Green Belt policy, “any other harm” includes every harm relevant for planning purposes, not merely harm to the Green Belt. The decision-maker must give substantial weight to Green Belt harm and weigh the harm caused by inappropriateness, together with all other planning harm, against all considerations favouring the development.

A policy threshold stating when a particular harm can independently justify refusal does not remove lesser harm from the planning balance. Such harm remains a material consideration, although its weight is a matter of planning judgment. Very special circumstances exist only where the considerations favouring inappropriate development clearly outweigh the combined harm.

A Planning Inspector refused permission for a hard runway and associated infrastructure at an aerodrome in the Metropolitan Green Belt. She treated the proposal as inappropriate development and included landscape, visual, noise and transport harm in the balance required by paragraphs 87 and 88 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

On an application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Patterson J quashed the Inspector’s decision. She held that non-Green Belt harms falling below the Framework’s individual refusal thresholds should not be included as “any other harm”.

The Secretary of State and the two local planning authorities appealed. The central issue was whether “any other harm” meant only additional harm to the Green Belt or included every harm relevant for planning purposes.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. The words “any other harm” in paragraph 88 of the National Planning Policy Framework include non-Green Belt harm relevant for planning purposes. The Inspector’s approach was correct. The order quashing her decision was set aside and the section 288 application was dismissed.

2. The words are unqualified. Paragraph 88 expressly uses “harm to the Green Belt” when it intends to restrict the relevant harm. Its different expression, “any other harm”, therefore bears its ordinary and wider meaning. This accords with the approach to materially equivalent language in the former Green Belt policy considered in River Club, [2009] EWHC 2674 (Admin).

3. The contrary construction would produce an illogical imbalance. All non-Green Belt considerations favouring permission must enter the very special circumstances balance. Non-Green Belt considerations pointing against permission must therefore also enter it. The decision-maker must weigh the harm caused by inappropriateness and all other planning harm against all considerations supporting the proposal.

4. Policy thresholds governing particular refusal grounds do not exclude lesser harms from the planning balance. For example, paragraph 32 prevents refusal on transport grounds unless residual cumulative transport impacts are severe. A less-than-severe transport impact nevertheless remains a material consideration and may be included as “any other harm”. Its weight is a matter of planning judgment.

5. This conclusion is consistent with the statutory requirement under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to determine applications in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Framework did not alter the duty to consider all material considerations.

6. The Framework had not silently effected the substantial change in Green Belt policy identified by the judge below. Its wording retained the essential characteristics of the former policy. The presumption in favour of sustainable development did not alter that conclusion because the Framework expressly identifies Green Belt policy as a specific policy restricting development.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the appeal unanimously, set aside the order quashing the Inspector’s decision and dismissed the application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. High Court, Planning Court: Patterson J allowed the section 288 application and quashed the Inspector’s decision, holding that non-Green Belt harms below individual policy refusal thresholds should not be included as “any other harm”. No neutral citation is stated in the judgment.
3. Planning Inspector: Dismissed the appeal against the local planning authorities’ refusals of planning permission for the proposed hard runway and associated infrastructure.