This may seem way "off piste" so I must explain the context. I chair our Parish Council Planning Committee and, the parish being located in the Metropolitan Green Belt, decisions about a goodly number of planning application hinge upon the potential effects upon the Green Belt. The bringing into force of the National Planning Policy Framework has resulted in many applicants arguing that, in effect, Green Belt protection is now lessened and that much more notice should be taken of a presumption in favour of sustainable development.
The Appeal Court judgement in the Redhill Aerodrome case has been cited in an application that is about to come before us and is a blow in favour of continued protection of the Green Belt.
The judgement hinged on what might appear to be something of an abstruse point - the meaning of the words "any other harm" in paragraph 88 of the NPPF (in the context of "very special circumstances" existing). It had been argued that these words should be interpreted as meaning "any other harm to the Green Belt" rather than "any other harm that is relevant for planning purposes". The Appeal Court judgement comes down on the latter interpretation essentially retaining the interpretation of the guidance previously available through PPG2. This is very good news.
What is also good news in my view is the last sentence of paragraph 35 of the judgement which reads "Thus, far from there being any indication that placing the presumption in favour of sustainable development at the heart of the Framework is intended to effect a change in Green Belt policy, there is a clear statement to the contrary".
Three cheers for the Appeal Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment