[2025] EWHC 2127 (Admin)

Lee Valley was not wrongly decided. The distinction between inappropriate and not inappropriate development in assessing the effect on openness is one of general application that was properly taken into account in the present case. The Inspector’s statement that “the aim of preserving openness cannot be comprised by development that is ‘not inappropriate’” is consistent with the interpretation of the NPPF as set out in Lee Valley and was not incorrect. Ground 1, therefore fails and is dismissed. This ground was principally predicated on the contention that Lee Valley was wrongly decided and/or inapplicable to this case. That essential contention was, notwithstanding the amount of this judgment devoted to it, unarguable. Permission is refused.