<\/p>\n
Local Government Lawyer writes:<\/p>\n
News of the decision came in the Supreme Court\u2019s latest list of determinations of permission applications, which was published this week. Permission was granted in the case of R (on the application of Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) and another) (Respondents) v North Yorkshire County Council (Appellant) UKSC 2018\/0077 last November by a panel comprising Lady Hale, Lord Carnwath and Lady Arden. The case centres on the grant of planning permission by the county council for a quarry extension.<\/p>\n
In the High Court in March 2017 Mr Justice Hickinbottom (as he then was) rejected a challenge brought by the brewery company Samuel Smith.\u00a0 In March 2018 the Court of Appeal allowed Samuel Smith\u2019s appeal in R (Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) and Oxton Farm) v North Yorkshire County Council and Darrington Quarries Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 489.<\/p>\n
Lord Justice Lindblom said that: \u2018\u2026 when the development under consideration is within one of the five categories in paragraph 90 [of the National Planning Policy Framework] and is likely to have visual effects within the Green Belt, the policy implicitly requires the decision-maker to consider how those visual effects bear on the question of whether the development would \u2018preserve the openness of the Green Belt\u2019.<\/p>\n
\u2018Where that planning judgment is not exercised by the decision-maker, effect will not be given to the policy. This will amount to a misunderstanding of the policy, and thus its misapplication, which is a failure to have regard to a material consideration, and an error of law.\u2019<\/p>\n
That such an error was committed in this case was clear, the Court of Appeal judge found.<\/p>\n
See also: Mineral extraction in the Green Belt – Peter Village QC and Ned Helme of 39 Essex Chambers’ analysis of the Court of Appeal ruling.<\/p>\n