“The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the “principal important controversial issues”, disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved. Reasons can be briefly stated, the degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision. The reasoning must not give rise to any substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds. But such adverse inference will not readily be drawn. The reasons need refer only to the main issues in the dispute, not to every material consideration. They should enable disappointed developers to assess their prospects of obtaining some alternative development permission, or, as the case may be, their unsuccessful opponent to understand how the policy or approach underlying the grant of permission may impact upon future such applications. Decision letters must be read in a straightforward manner, recognising that they are addressed to parties well aware of the issues involved and the arguments advanced. A reasons challenge will only succeed if the party aggrieved can satisfy the court that he had genuinely been substantially prejudiced by the failure to provide an adequately reasoned decision.”
“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 that openness and their permanence. 80. Green Belt serves five purposes: • to check the unrestricted sprawl of the 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; • to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling derelict and 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 very special circumstances. 89. A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are: • [1] buildings for agriculture and forestry; • [2] provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and the cemeteries, so long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it; • [3] the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building; • [4] the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces; • [5] limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or • [6] limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development. 90. Certain other forms of development are not inappropriate in Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. These are: • mineral extraction; • engineering operations; • local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location; • the re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction; and…”
“13. Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt. It can be taken as the absence of building and development. Whether harm is caused to openness depends on a variety of factors such as the scale of the development, its locational context and its spatial and/or visual implications. 14. The appellant’s photographic evidence shows that the container would be located in an area that was formerly surrounded by palisade fencing and contained two LPG storage tanks that were around 3.5 m in height, as well as being used for bin storage. Although not as high as these tanks, the overall scale and mass of the container is greater than them, and the proposed 2.6m timber fencing surrounding the container is not as open as the previous palisade fencing. 15. The appellant has indicated that the extension to the shop building would be located in an area that was formerly occupied by a storage container. However, no details have been provided of how large this container was, how long it had been there, or when it was removed. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, on the basis that this was a standard sized container, I consider that the scale and mass of the proposed extension is likely to be slightly greater than that of a container. 16. In addition, the appellant has calculated that overall the appeal scheme would result in a 9.2% increase in floor area, and a 5% increase in volume on the existing filling station, shop and Starbucks building. Whilst these may be relatively small increases, the scale and mass of the resulting building would still be greater than at present. 17. Overall, I therefore consider that the scale and mass of the proposals would have a slightly greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the site did previously. I accept that [the] proposals are, to a certain extent, screened by other development on the site and the boundary treatment to the rear. Nevertheless, whilst visibility can be a factor in considering the effect on openness, this does not mean that the proposals would not affect openness, as a lack of visibility does not, in itself, mean that there would be no loss of openness. Moreover, even a limited adverse impact on openness means that openness is not preserved. 18. The purposes of including land in the Green Belt are set out in paragraph 80 of the Framework. As the proposals would be small additions to an existing building within a previously developed site, I am satisfied that the appeal schemes would not conflict with any of the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. 19. Therefore, although the proposal represents the limited infilling of previously developed site, and would not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt, it would still represent inappropriate development because it would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the site does at present.”
“limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and [conflict more with] the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.”
“37. The concept of “openness of the Green Belt” is not defined in paragraph 90. Nor is it defined elsewhere in the NPPF. But I agree with Sales L.J.’s observations in Turner to the effect that the concept of “openness” as it is used in both paragraph 89 and paragraph 90 must take its meaning from the specific context in which it falls to be applied under the policies in those two paragraphs. Different factors are capable of being relevant to the concept when it is applied to the facts of a case. Visual impact, as well as spatial impact, is, as Sales L.J. said “implicitly part” of it. In a particular case there may or may not be other harmful visual effects apart from harm in visual terms to the openness of the Green Belt. And the absence of other harmful visual effects does not equate to an absence of visual harm to the openness of the Green Belt. 38. As a general proposition, however, it seems to me that the policy in paragraph 90 makes it necessary to consider whether the effect of a particular development on the openness of the Green Belt can properly be gauged merely by its two-dimensional or three-dimensional presence on the site in question – the very fact of its being there – without taking into accounts the effects it will have on the openness of the Green Belt in the eyes of the viewer. To exclude visual impact, as a matter of principle, from a consideration of the likely effects of development on the openness of the Green Belt would be artificial and unrealistic. The policy in paragraph 90 does not do that. A realistic assessment will often have to include the likely perceived effects on openness, if any, as well as spatial effects. Whether, in the individual circumstances sofa a particular case, there are likely to be visual as well as spatial effects on the openness of the Green Belt, and if so, whether those effects are likely to be harmful or benign, will be for the decision-maker to judge. But the need for those judgments to be exercised is, in my view, inherent in the policy. 39. The first part of the question posed by the preamble in paragraph 90 – whether the development would “preserve” the openness of the Green Belt – cannot mean that a proposal can only be regarded as “not inappropriate in the Green Belt” if the openness of the Green Belt would be left entirely unchanged. It can only sensibly mean that the effects on openness must not be harmful – understanding the verb “preserve” in the sense of “keep … safe from harm” – rather than “maintain (a state of things)” …. There may be cases in which a proposed development in the Green Belt will have no harmful visual effects on the openness of the Green Belt. Indeed, there may be cases in which development will have no, or no additional, effect on the openness of the Green Belt, either visual or spatial … But development for “mineral extraction” in the Green Belt, the category of development with which we are concerned, will often have long-lasting visual effects on the openness of the Green Belt, which may be partly or wholly repaired in the restoration phase – or may not. Whether the visual effect of a particular project of mineral working would be such as to harm the openness of the Green Belt is, classically, a matter of planning judgment. 40. In my view, therefore, when the development under consideration is within one of the five categories in paragraph 90 and is likely to have visual effects within the Green belt, the policy implicitly requires the decision-maker to consider how these visual effects will bear on the question of whether the development would “preserve the openness of the Green Belt”. where 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.”