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

Paragraphs 143 and 144 of the National Planning Policy Framework do not require a mathematical or artificially sequenced exercise in which substantial weight is allocated separately to every element of Green Belt harm. Read together, they require the decision-maker to recognise that inappropriate development is harmful by definition, give proper weight to the importance and seriousness of Green Belt harm, and decide whether the totality of that harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The assessment remains a single exercise of planning judgment. A planning decision is lawful where the policy is correctly understood and applied, the relevant harms and benefits are considered, and the reasoning is adequate when read as a whole.

The claimant challenged an inspector’s decision allowing conjoined appeals concerning a proposed Traveller site in the Green Belt. The decision granted planning permission and quashed enforcement notices relating to development already carried out.

The challenges under sections 288 and 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 alleged misinterpretation and misapplication of paragraphs 143 and 144 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The claimant argued that each separate Green Belt harm had to receive substantial weight before the harms were balanced against other considerations. The central issue was the proper interpretation of that policy and whether the inspector’s planning balance disclosed an error of law.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The inspector’s decision was lawful.
2. The National Planning Policy Framework is policy guidance, not statute. It must be interpreted objectively and applied correctly, but its interpretation must respect the nature of planning policy and the planning context. Planning judgments and the weight given to relevant considerations are ordinarily matters for the decision-maker, subject to legal error and irrationality (paras [26]–[28]).
3. Paragraphs 143 and 144 must be read together. Paragraph 143 identifies inappropriate development as harmful by definition and requires very special circumstances before it may be approved. Paragraph 144 explains that requirement and emphasises the seriousness of Green Belt harm. Its reference to substantial weight is not a separate mathematical instruction requiring substantial weight to be allocated independently to every kind of harm (paras [31]–[34]).
4. The correct approach is a single exercise of planning judgment. The decision-maker must recognise definitional harm, consider any additional harm, give real regard to the importance of the Green Belt, and determine whether the totality of the harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The approach under paragraph 3.2 of PPG2 and paragraphs 87 and 88 of the former NPPF remains applicable (paras [35]–[49], [59]).
5. The authorities did not require the claimant’s proposed “individual approach”. Budhdeo v SSCLG and Thurrock BC v SSCLG were decisions that the inspectors’ letters were lawful when read as a whole; they did not establish that separate substantial weight was mandatory (paras [50]–[58]).
6. The inspector correctly stated the policy, identified definitional and additional harm, considered the countervailing factors, and concluded that very special circumstances existed. Reading paragraphs [39]–[42] together, the decision disclosed a lawful exercise of planning judgment. All appeals under sections 288 and 289 failed (paras [60]–[62]).

First-instance statutory challenges under sections 288 and 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The judgment records no prior substantive appellate decision in this litigation.