## Facts

- The claimant, a quarry operator (Samuel Smith Old Brewery), applied for planning permission to extend a quarry situated within the green belt.
- Paragraph 90 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) allows certain developments in the green belt if they preserve its 'openness' and do not conflict with its purposes.
- The Local Planning Authority evaluated the proposed quarry extension, including its effect on the green belt’s openness, and granted permission.
- This decision was challenged in the High Court and then in the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal quashed the planning permission, holding that visual impact was a significant factor in determining whether the proposal preserved the openness of the green belt.
- The case was appealed to the Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Does the concept of "openness" in the context of green belt policy (paragraph 90 NPPF) necessarily require consideration of visual impact?
2. To what extent is the assessment of “openness” a matter for planning judgment rather than a question of law subject to judicial scrutiny?
3. When applying broad planning policy concepts, what is the proper boundary between planning authority discretion and legal analysis?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that “openness” is a broad policy concept and its assessment is a matter of planning judgment, not law.
- The Court clarified that visual impact is not an essential element of openness under green belt policy.
- The officer’s report demonstrated that the planning authority considered visual impacts within the broader objective of preserving the green belt.
- Judicial review of such planning judgments is limited to cases where a decision is irrational or perverse.
- The planning permission was restored.

## Legal Principles

- "Openness" within green belt policy refers primarily to the absence of development contributing to urban sprawl, not necessarily the visual quality of the surroundings.
- The interpretation and application of broad planning policy concepts are primarily for local planning authorities, who may consider but are not required to treat visual impact as determinative.
- Legal analysis should distinguish between relatively specific policies (open to detailed scrutiny) and broad policy goals (primarily matters of planning judgment).
- Judicial review of planning judgment is limited; intervention will only occur if the decision is irrational or perverse.
- The Court should avoid "over-legalising" the planning process and respect the professional skill and discretion of planning authorities.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court confirmed that the assessment of "openness" for green belt purposes is a matter for planning judgment, not legal determination, and the courts must respect the discretion afforded to planning authorities in interpreting broad policy concepts unless their decisions are irrational.


R (Samuel Smith Old Brewery) v North Yorkshire County Council [2020] UKSC 3