CA-2024-002732 - [2025] EWCA Civ 958

By a decision dated 22 March 2024, the Secretary of State agreed with the recommendation to allow the appeals and he granted planning permission in relation to both proposed developments.

The decision letter made no express reference to the Arup Review. At Annex A, the decision letter included a list of the correspondence the Secretary of State had received in response to the request for information. That list included the correspondence referred to in paragraphs 29 to 33 above. Paragraph 9 of the decision letter said:

“9.

A list of other representations which have been received since the inquiry is also at Annex A. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the issues raised do not affect his decision, and no other new issues were raised in this correspondence to warrant further investigation or necessitate additional referrals back to parties. Copies of these letters may be obtained on request to the email address at the foot of the first page of this letter.”

The decision letter then considered policy and statutory matters. It referred to the fact that the previous emerging local plan had been withdrawn in 2020 and that the Council was in the early stages of preparing a new local plan. It noted that the Council had completed consultation on a draft local plan. The decision letter refers to the NPPF and the weight to be given to relevant policies in emerging plans. It concluded by saying at paragraph 15 that the “Secretary of State considers that the emerging Local Plan is at an early stage and therefore carries limited weight”.

The decision letter dealt with the green belt at paragraphs 17 to 20 and said this:

"Green Belt

17.

The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that both proposals represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt (IR528). For the reasons given in IR530-534, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the Green Belt Review is a material consideration relevant in considering Green Belt matters in the district, and that the relative suitability of strategic sub-area S8 (which both appeal sites fall within), as defined by the Green Belt Review, is an important consideration.

18.

Appeal A: For the reasons given at IR534 the Secretary of State agrees that Appeal site A is largely undeveloped and open at present, and that the introduction of 391 dwellings, a school and associated works would introduce a great deal of built volume to the Green Belt. For the reasons given in IR535-542, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the Appeal A scheme would result in definitional harm to the Green Belt, as well as harm to its openness and purposes (moderate harm to checking unrestricted sprawl, very limited harm to preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another, and moderate harm to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment). Like the Inspector he attaches substantial weight to this harm.

19.

Appeal B: For the reasons given at IR543 the Secretary of State agrees that Appeal site B is largely open and undeveloped, and that the 330 dwellings sought would have a considerable and permanent impact on openness in both a spatial and visual sense. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given in IR544 that the development would result in substantial harm to Green Belt openness. For the reasons given at IR546-548 the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there would be significant harm to the purpose of checking unrestricted sprawl, very limited harm to preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another, and significant harm to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Like the Inspector at IR550, the Secretary of State concludes that the development would result in definitional harm to the Green Belt, as well as harm to its openness and purposes, and he attaches substantial weight to this harm.

20.

Both Appeals: The Secretary of State has gone on to apply national Green Belt policy. Paragraphs 152-153 (formerly 147-148) of the Framework state that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The Secretary of State has gone on to consider these matters. His conclusion on whether very special circumstances exist is set out in para 42 below."

The decision letter then dealt with other matters. At paragraphs 37 to 44, it considers the planning balance and set out the Secretary of State’s overall conclusion. Paragraphs 38 to 42 state:

“38.

Appeal A: Weighing in favour of the proposal is the provision of housing which carries very substantial weight; the provision of land for a primary school which carries significant weight; economic benefits which carry moderate weight; open space/recreation provision which carries limited weight; BNG provision which carries limited weight; and improved bus/cycleway provision which also carries limited weight.

39.

Appeal A: Weighing against the proposal is the harm to the Green Belt from inappropriateness, harm to openness, and harm to three of the purposes of the Green Belt, which carries substantial weight. Landscape and visual harm, and the loss of BMV land each carry limited weight, and the impact on air quality which carries very limited weight.

40.

Appeal B: Weighing in favour or Appeal B is the provision of 100% affordable housing which carries very substantial weight; economic benefits which carry moderate weight; open space/recreation provision which carries limited weight; BNG provision which carried limited weight; and improved bus/cycleway provision which also carries limited weight.

41.

Appeal B: Weighing against Appeal B is the harm to the Green Belt from inappropriateness, harm to openness, and harm to three of the purposes of the Green Belt, which carries substantial weight. Landscape and visual harm carries significant weight; the loss of BMV land carries limited weight; and the impact on air quality which carries very limited weight.

42.

The Secretary of State has considered whether the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and the other harms he has identified, are clearly outweighed by other considerations. He considers that they are, and therefore very special circumstances exist to justify permitting the development. As such, the proposed development accords with Policy S1 of the St Stephen Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2019-2036 and Policy 1 of the St Albans District Local Plan Review 1994, and national planning policy on Green Belt.”