Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) & Ors, R (on the application of) v Darrington Quarries Ltd

Paragraph 90 of the National Planning Policy Framework creates a category of development which is not inappropriate in the Green Belt, subject to preserving openness and avoiding conflict with Green Belt purposes. The listed categories in paragraphs 89 and 90 are closed. Openness is an open-textured concept. Spatial impact will often be central, but visual impact, purpose, duration and reversibility may be relevant according to the circumstances. A decision-maker has a margin of appreciation in selecting relevant considerations and need not address every possible factor in every case. An officers’ report must be read fairly as a whole. It is not defective merely because it uses imperfect wording, provided it sufficiently informs the planning committee and does not materially mislead it.

The claimants challenged the Council’s grant of planning permission for a quarry extension in the Green Belt. The challenge concerned whether the officers’ report, adopted by the planning committee, misunderstood paragraph 90 of the NPPF when assessing whether mineral extraction would preserve Green Belt openness.

The claimants argued that the report failed to consider visual and noise impacts, contained inconsistent findings, wrongly limited openness to built development, and treated adjacency to an existing quarry as determinative. The central issue was whether those alleged errors made the decision unlawful.

1. Claim dismissed. Permission to proceed was granted at the rolled-up hearing, but the substantive judicial review failed on all four grounds.
2. Paragraphs 89 and 90 contain closed lists. Development outside the listed categories is inappropriate and may be approved only in very special circumstances. Mineral extraction falls within paragraph 90’s category only if openness is preserved and the development does not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt.
3. The distinction is between development which is in principle inappropriate and development which is in principle not inappropriate. That distinction applies to the paragraph 89 exceptions and paragraph 90 categories.
4. Openness is open-textured. Spatial impact will commonly be important, but visual impact, purpose, duration and reversibility may also be relevant. Their relevance depends on the particular case. The decision-maker is not legally required to consider each factor in every Green Belt case.
5. The report’s treatment of visual impact as a separate planning consideration, together with its treatment of spatial impact and the factors identified in Europa Oil and Gas Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, was sufficient. Any omission to repeat visual impact under the openness heading was immaterial on these facts.
6. The expressions that the development would preserve openness and would not materially harm it were consistent when read in context. The reference to the absence of built development did not exclude other forms of development, and adjacency to the existing quarry was a relevant factor but not treated as conclusive.
7. An officers’ report must be read fairly as a whole. It must enable councillors to understand the material issues and must not materially mislead them, but it is not to be subjected to statutory exegesis.