Introduction
The case of R (Samuel Smith Old Brewery) v North Yorkshire CC [2020] UKSC 3 addresses the judicial interpretation of planning policies, specifically the concept of "openness" within the context of green belt land. This case, decided by the Supreme Court, examines the extent to which courts should scrutinize planning decisions that are grounded in broad, rather than specific, policy language. The technical principles in this judgment revolve around the delineation between matters of planning judgment and matters of law, particularly when applied to policy frameworks such as the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Key requirements for a ruling include understanding the historical context of the planning policy, differentiating between broad and specific policy concepts, and recognizing the authority of local planning authorities in their application of planning judgment.
The Facts of the Case
The core of the dispute involves a quarry operator, referred to as S, who applied for planning permission to extend a quarry located within the green belt. Paragraph 90 of the NPPF stipulates that developments in the green belt are not inappropriate if they preserve the 'openness' of the green belt and do not conflict with its purposes. The local planning authority, after considering various factors, including the proposal's effect on the green belt's openness, granted planning permission. This decision was challenged, first in the High Court, and subsequently at the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal reversed the initial decision. It argued that visual impact was a relevant, and potentially significant, factor in assessing whether the development preserved the 'openness' of the green belt. It subsequently quashed the planning permission. S appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which then heard the case.
The Supreme Court's Ruling on "Openness"
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that “openness” is a broad policy concept, and the aspects relevant to it were "a matter of planning judgment, not law." Lord Carnwath, delivering the leading judgment, clarified that visual quality of the landscape is not an essential element of openness for which the Green Belt is protected, referencing the historical context of the NPPF. The court referenced that while the wording of paragraph 90 of the NPPF had changed since the Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts from 1995 and amended in 2001, the approach taken in policy had not changed. The judgment emphasized that the concept of "openness" relates to the prevention of urban sprawl and is linked to the purposes of the green belt, rather than a statement about visual qualities of the land. It further clarified that “openness” does not imply a complete absence of development.
The Legal Principles at Play
The Supreme Court drew heavily upon established legal principles, notably from Tesco Stores v Dundee City Council. In this case, Lord Reed articulated that development plans are characterized by broad policy statements that can be mutually inconsistent. This requires planning authorities to exercise judgment when applying them to specific facts. It further emphasized that the judicial review of such exercises of judgment was limited to situations where decisions were irrational or perverse. This principle highlighted a distinction between the legal analysis of specific policies, and the discretionary application of broad policy goals.
Lord Carnwath also referred to the Hopkins Homes case, cautioning against "over-legalisation" of the planning process. He differentiated between policies expressed in “relatively specific terms” and policies “expressed in much broader terms” that do not lend themselves to the same degree of legal scrutiny. The Court’s reasoning demonstrated an understanding that judicial bodies may have limitations regarding engaging in policy interpretation, given that these may require practical knowledge that is more appropriately the remit of planning authorities.
Application to the Current Case
Applying these principles to R (Samuel Smith Old Brewery) v North Yorkshire CC, the Supreme Court reasoned that paragraph 90 of the NPPF does not expressly require a consideration of visual impact to assess "openness." It noted that “openness” is a matter for planning judgment and not law and that this is especially true of a broad policy concept. The Court stated that while visual effects could be considered in relation to the restoration of a site in this particular case, the relatively limited visual impact arising from the development did not represent an error of law. The officer's report, when read in its entirety, demonstrated that the planning authority did not disregard visual impacts. Instead, it assessed them in the context of the overall objective of preserving the green belt. The court emphasized that the planning authority’s judgment was not irrational or perverse.
Commentary and Significance
This case is considered the final part of a trilogy of cases heard by the Supreme Court concerning the interpretation of planning policy. It built upon the distinctions made in Tesco Stores v Dundee City Council and Suffolk Coastal DC v Hopkins Homes regarding specific versus broad policy concepts. Samuel Ruiz-Tagle’s analysis of the ruling in the Journal of Environmental Law, notes that the Court acknowledges ‘the expertise of specialist planning inspectors’, highlighting the court’s respect for the planning authorities. Ruiz-Tagle goes on to state that the court recognizes its own ‘institutional limitations’ in the interpretation of planning policy and adopted a ‘method of prudence’ when reviewing cases of this nature. The judgment in R (Samuel Smith Old Brewery) v North Yorkshire CC provides a clarification regarding how planning policy should be understood, and judicial review should be conducted, especially concerning broad concepts such as “openness.” The case serves to maintain a balance between judicial oversight and the discretionary powers of local planning authorities by confirming the scope of planning judgment.
Conclusion
The decision in R (Samuel Smith Old Brewery) v North Yorkshire CC [2020] UKSC 3 provides specific guidance for how to understand legal scrutiny of planning policy. The case emphasizes that broad policy concepts such as "openness," are matters of planning judgment. The ruling draws from established precedent in cases such as Tesco Stores v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13, and Suffolk Coastal DC v Hopkins Homes [2017] UKSC 17, confirming the approach to the interpretation of planning policy. This judgment underscores that while courts play a crucial role in judicial review, there are limitations in the courts’ ability to engage fully in policy interpretation, especially where judgments require expert knowledge of planning matters. It establishes that legal analysis should differentiate between broad and specific policy provisions, respecting the discretion of planning authorities unless they act irrationally.
