“16. Section 9 of the Framework deals with protecting Green Belt Land. Paragraphs 79 and 80 provide as follows: “79. The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. 80. Green Belt serves five purposes; • To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas • To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; • To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; • To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and • To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. 18. Paragraphs 87 and 88 of the Framework provide as follows: “87. As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in exceptional circumstances. 88. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. “Very special circumstances” will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of the inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.” “79. The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. • To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas • To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; • To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; • To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and • To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. “87. As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in exceptional circumstances. 88. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. “Very special circumstances” will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of the inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.”
“The Government’s overarching aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for travellers, in a way that facilitates the traditional and nomadic way of life of travellers while respecting the interests of the settled community.”
“14. Inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved, except in very special circumstances. Traveller sites (temporary or permanent) in the Green Belt are inappropriate development. 15. Green Belt boundaries should be altered only in exceptional circumstances. If a local planning authority wishes to make an exceptional limited alteration to the defined Green Belt boundary (which might be to accommodate a site inset within the Green Belt) to meet a specific, identified need fro a traveller site, it should do so only through the plan-making process and not in response to a planning application. If land is removed from the Green Belt in this way, it should be specifically allocated in the development plan as a traveller site only.”
“In this case the asserted material consideration is a previous appeal decision. It was not disputed in argument that a previous appeal decision is capable of being a material consideration. The proposition is in my judgment indisputable. One important reason why previous decisions are capable of being material is that like cases should be decided in a like manner so that there is consistency in the appeal process. Consistency is self evidently important to both developers and development control authorities. But it is also important for the purpose of securing public confidence in the operation of the development control system. I do not suggest and it would be wrong to do so, that like cases must be decided alike. An inspector must always exercise his own judgment. He is therefore free upon consideration to disagree with the judgment of another but before doing so he ought to have regard to the importance of consistency and to give reasons for departure from the previous decision. To state that like cases should be decided alike presupposes that the earlier case is not distinguishable in some relevant respect. If it is distinguishable then it usually will lack materiality by reference to consistency although it may be material in some other way. Where it is indistinguishable then ordinarily it must be a material consideration. A practical test for the inspector is to ask himself whether, if I decide this case in a particular way am I necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with some critical aspect of the decision in the previous case? The areas for possible disagreement cannot be defined but they would include interpretation of policies, aesthetic judgments and assessment of need. Where there is disagreement then the inspector must weigh the previous decision and give his reasons for departure from it.”
“Mr Lopez, therefore, as he recognised, in is the unattractive, but, he says, nonetheless tenable, position of raising a point which was not raised before the inspector for his decision. He says he is entitled to do that because the meaning of the enforcement notice is a matter for the proper interpretation of the notice and its consequences are clear in the light of the enforcement notice decision letter and the inspector has simply got it wrong – a point which he is entitled to take. I reject that approach. Whatever may be the limited circumstances in which it can be contended that the inspector has reached a decision that is erroneous in law and beyond his powers by reference to a point not raised in front of him, this is not one of them. This is not a point that has not been available to be taken; it is not a point that can be described as an error of fact which has become an error of law not known to the parties at the time. It is not a point where it can be said it has arisen without the parties being given an opportunity to deal with it; it is clear that the inspector at the section 78 hearing was alive to the problems which the enforcement notice decision might create and sought to provide the means whereby it could be dealt with. This is not a pure point of law either. The existence of the fallback position may require the examination of fact, and conclusions as to fact and degree. The significance of the fallback position most certainly is capable of giving rise to a judgment of fact and degree. Those matters, available to be raised before the inspector, should have been raised before the inspector. If not raised, in my judgment, it cannot be said he has omitted to consider a material consideration; nor in my judgment, can it be said that his reasoning is inadequate by reference to an issue not raised before him…”
“The “weight” of a consideration is merely a reference to the importance attached to it……… In other words, before any consideration of the individual circumstances of the child or any other material considerations, the best interest of any child can be said to have “a substantial weight” in the sense of an importance that no other consideration exceeds; but that evaluation may alter once the individual circumstances of those interests and other factors are considered and assessed. Therefore, whilst it might be said at a policy level that a particular factor should be given a particular “weight” (e.g. “moderate” or “substantial”), where it is the very function of a decision-maker to attach weight to considerations which are material to the decision he is required to make, as he proceeds with his examination of the circumstances of the individual case, he must adjust the relative weighting to that which, in his judgment, the circumstances of the case require. On examination of all the material factors, the importance of one consideration may reduce (or, of course, increase), compared with others. There is no reason why any change cannot properly be reflected in the designation given to the weight of those factors: it is not sensible to require a decision-maker to stick formulaically with the designation he is required to start with The matter is one of substance not form. That applies equally to weight or importance that policy documents such as PPG2 require to be afforded to particular planning public policy factors, and to the weight or importance that article 3 of the UNCRC requires as a matter of policy to be given to the best interest of a child.”