Turner v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

For the sixth exception in paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework, openness of the Green Belt is not confined to a comparison of development volumes. It is an open-textured concept with both spatial and visual dimensions. A decision-maker may assess the quantum, extent and permanence of development, how built-up the land is or would become, and visual intrusion into the Green Belt.

A permanent building need not be treated as directly comparable with movable chattels merely because their calculated volumes are similar. Earlier planning policy may assist in construing the Framework, but it cannot override materially different wording or reduce Green Belt protection.

John Turner sought planning permission to replace a lawful mobile home and commercial vehicle-storage use on Green Belt land with a three-bedroom bungalow and residential curtilage. He contended that the proposal fell within the sixth exception in paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework because it would have no greater effect on openness than the existing lawful use.

The planning inspector dismissed his appeal. The inspector held that the bungalow would have a considerably greater impact on Green Belt openness. Lang J dismissed Turner’s statutory challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990: [2015] EWHC 2788 (Admin).

The central issue on this appeal was whether Green Belt openness was confined to a volumetric comparison and whether visual impact could lawfully be considered.

Disposition

1. The appeal was dismissed. The inspector had correctly treated the proposed bungalow as inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

2. The sixth exception in paragraph 89 required an evaluative comparison between the existing lawful use and the proposed redevelopment. The concept of Green Belt openness was not limited to the appellant’s volumetric approach. It had both a spatial or physical dimension and a visual dimension. Relevant matters could include the quantum, extent and permanence of development, the present and future built-up character of the land, and visual intrusion.

3. The inspector was therefore entitled to distinguish a permanent bungalow from a mobile home and vehicles which could be replaced or moved. He was not required to offset the calculated volume of the vehicles against the bungalow. He was also entitled to find that the bungalow’s form, roof and façade would obstruct views and harm openness. That planning assessment was rational.

4. The court disapproved the propositions drawn from R (Timmins) v Gedling Borough Council [2014] EWHC 654 (Admin) that openness and visual impact were conceptually distinct and that visual impact could not inform a conclusion on openness. They gave insufficient weight to the language and context of section 9 of the Framework.

5. R (Heath and Hampstead Society) v Camden LBC [2007] EWHC 977 (Admin) concerned the different size-based test in paragraph 3.6 of PPG 2. It was not authoritative guidance on the sixth exception. Its recognition that spatial intrusion can harm Green Belt openness nevertheless remained relevant. The Framework had to be construed objectively as a self-contained policy, consistently with the guidance in R (Timmins) v Gedling Borough Council [2015] EWCA Civ 10 and Redhill Aerodrome Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWCA Civ 1386, without weakening Green Belt protection.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — dismissed Turner’s appeal and upheld the inspector’s refusal of planning permission.
• High Court, Planning Court — Lang J dismissed the application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the inspector’s decision: [2015] EWHC 2788 (Admin).