R (on the application of Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) & Ors) v North Yorkshire County Council [2020] UKSC 3

A quarry extension in the Green Belt was granted planning permission. The issue was whether 'openness' in Green Belt policy required visual impact assessment. The Supreme Court held visual impact is not a mandatory consideration under the openness proviso; it is a matter of planning judgement, not law.

Facts

Darrington Quarries Ltd applied for planning permission to extend Jackdaw Crag Quarry, a magnesian limestone quarry in the Green Belt near Tadcaster. The extension covered approximately six hectares, expected to yield two million tonnes of crushed rock over seven years. North Yorkshire County Council granted permission in September 2016. Samuel Smith Old Brewery objected, arguing the council failed to properly assess visual impact under the ‘openness’ requirement in paragraph 90 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Issues

The central issue was whether the council correctly understood the meaning of ‘openness’ in NPPF paragraph 90, specifically whether visual impact was a legally required consideration when assessing whether mineral extraction preserves the openness of the Green Belt.

Judgment

The Meaning of Openness

Lord Carnwath, delivering the unanimous judgment, examined the concept of openness in Green Belt policy. He noted that openness is naturally read as referring back to the underlying aim of Green Belt policy:

“to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open … Openness is the counterpart of urban sprawl and is also linked to the purposes to be served by the Green Belt. As PPG2 made clear, it is not necessarily a statement about the visual qualities of the land, though in some cases this may be an aspect of the planning judgement involved in applying this broad policy concept.”

Visual Impact and Planning Judgement

The Court rejected the argument that visual impact must always be considered under the openness proviso:

“The concept of ‘openness’ in para 90 of the NPPF seems to me a good example of such a broad policy concept… the matters relevant to openness in any particular case are a matter of planning judgement, not law.”

Assessment of the Officer’s Report

Lord Carnwath disagreed with the Court of Appeal’s criticism of the planning officer’s report. He noted the officer’s comment that openness is ‘commonly taken to be the absence of built development’ was consistent with established case law and the NPPF’s contrast between openness and urban sprawl. He stated:

“I do not read the officer as saying that visual impact can never be relevant to openness.”

The Court found that the relatively limited visual impact fell far short of being so obviously material that failure to address it expressly was an error of law.

Implications

This case clarifies that visual impact is not an express or implied mandatory consideration under the openness proviso in NPPF paragraph 90. Whether visual effects are relevant in any particular case is a matter of planning judgement for the decision-maker, not a question of law for the courts. The decision reinforces the principle against ‘over-legalisation’ of the planning process and confirms that broad policy concepts like ‘openness’ allow for flexibility in application depending on the circumstances of each case.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. The Supreme Court confirmed the order of the High Court dismissing the application, thereby reinstating the planning permission granted by North Yorkshire County Council.

Source: Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) & Ors, R (on the application of) v North Yorkshire County Council [2020] UKSC 3