Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government

At an oral permission hearing, the threshold is whether the proposed ground is arguable. A challenge concerning the application of Green Belt policy may be arguable where the decision-maker’s treatment of different forms of Green Belt harm leaves a genuine question about whether the policy was correctly applied. By contrast, a reasons challenge will fail where the decision, read as a whole, makes the decision-maker’s conclusions and reasoning readily understandable.

The Council sought permission to challenge an Inspector’s decision allowing conjoined appeals concerning planning permission and enforcement notices relating to unauthorised residential use and engineering works on Green Belt land. The planning permission challenge was brought under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s 288, and the enforcement-notice challenges under s 289.

The Council argued that the Inspector had misapplied paragraph 144 of the National Planning Policy Framework by failing to give substantial weight to each identified form of Green Belt harm, and had failed to give adequate reasons. The central issue was whether either ground was sufficiently arguable to justify permission.

1. Permission threshold. The court applied the threshold of arguability applicable to an application for permission.
2. Green Belt policy. The Council’s challenge raised an arguable issue concerning the proper approach to paragraph 144 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The Inspector had given substantial weight to harm by reason of inappropriate development, but described the additional harm from loss of openness, encroachment and intentional unauthorised development as attracting collectively a further degree of weight. It was arguable that this approach failed properly to apply the policy, and permission was granted on that ground.
3. Adequacy of reasons. Read as a whole, the decision letter clearly identified the Inspector’s findings on loss of openness, encroachment and the overall planning balance. The reasons were readily understandable, and the Council’s complaint disclosed no arguable failure to give adequate reasons. Permission was refused on Ground 2.
4. The court determined permission only; it did not finally determine the legality of the Inspector’s decision on Ground 1.

The judgment itself was a permission decision concerning an Inspector’s decision dated 27 April 2020. The applications were heard together following an order by Holgate J. Permission was granted on the Green Belt policy ground and refused on the reasons ground.