Britaniacrest Recycling Ltd v Surrey County Council

Policy listing factors that may contribute to very special circumstances does not require every listed factor to be established. Nor does it prescribe the weight or order in which those factors must be considered. The decision-maker may consider some or all of the listed matters, together with other material considerations, and weigh them cumulatively against Green Belt harm. For a new building on an existing waste site, the availability of suitable non-Green Belt alternatives and the location of waste arisings may remain material considerations. The existing lawful use and site characteristics must also be considered, but they do not remove the need to assess whether the proposed building would cause Green Belt harm and whether alternative sites could avoid it. The court dismissed the challenge because the Inspector’s decision disclosed no error of law and gave adequate reasons.

The claimant applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash an Inspector’s dismissal of its section 78 planning appeal. The appeal concerned a proposed building and concrete hardstanding at an existing waste transfer and recycling facility in the Metropolitan Green Belt.

The claimant accepted that the building was inappropriate development requiring very special circumstances. It challenged the Inspector’s interpretation and application of Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy CW6, including her consideration of alternative non-Green Belt sites, waste arisings, site characteristics and the adequacy of her reasons.

1. Application dismissed. The Inspector had correctly treated the proposed building as inappropriate development under paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework because its footprint, height and bulk would materially diminish Green Belt openness.
2. Policy CW6 did not require all four listed considerations to be demonstrated. Its language was non-exclusive and permissive: the factors were matters which might contribute to very special circumstances. The policy neither prescribed their priority or weight nor excluded other material considerations. The decision-maker could consider some, all or none of them, depending on the case, and could assess them together.
3. The Inspector was entitled to consider the availability of suitable non-Green Belt sites and sites well related to waste arisings. The fact that the appeal site was an existing lawful waste facility did not make those matters legally irrelevant where the proposal was a substantially larger new building causing harm to openness. The alternative-site assessment was also properly considered in the context of the whole market area and possible changes in waste flows.
4. The Inspector had taken account of the site’s existing lawful use and characteristics, together with the operational, environmental and visual benefits of the proposal and the environmental permit. The decision letter was to be read fairly and as a whole. It was unnecessary to address Policy CW6’s factors in numerical order or under separate headings.
5. The Inspector lawfully concluded that the identified benefits did not clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm. The reasoning left no genuine doubt about what had been decided or why. The subsequent grant of planning permission for the Earlswood site did not affect the lawfulness of the decision, which fell to be assessed when issued.
6. Permission to appeal was refused. The claimant was ordered to pay the Secretary of State’s costs, assessed at £6,553.

The claimant’s section 78 planning appeal against Surrey County Council’s refusal of planning permission was dismissed by the Inspector. The High Court dismissed the claimant’s section 288 challenge to that decision and refused permission to appeal.