NRS Saredon Aggregates Limited v The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2795 (Admin)
Holystone Civil Engineering Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
14 July 2023
[2023] EWHC 1739 (Admin)
High Court
A company wanted to build on a quarry, but the council said no because it was in a protected area. An expert looked at their request, and the court decided the expert didn't understand the company’s argument about the number of jobs that would be created, so the expert's decision was overturned.
Key Facts
- •Holystone Civil Engineering Ltd applied to develop land at Houghton Quarry without complying with conditions of a previous planning permission.
- •The application involved increasing inert waste and raising the development platform by 12 meters.
- •Sunderland City Council refused permission, citing inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
- •Holystone appealed, arguing the development wouldn't harm Green Belt openness more than the existing permission and citing very special circumstances (job creation).
- •The inspector dismissed the appeal, finding the development inappropriate and that very special circumstances didn't outweigh the harm.
- •Holystone challenged the decision, arguing the inspector mischaracterized the main issue and misunderstood evidence on job creation.
Legal Principles
Inappropriate development in the Green Belt should not be approved except in very special circumstances where harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
NPPF 2021, paragraphs 147-149
Construction of new buildings is generally inappropriate in the Green Belt, except in specified circumstances, including redevelopment of previously developed land with no greater impact on openness.
NPPF 2021, paragraph 149
Fallback development (what might happen if the application is refused) is a material consideration; its weight depends on the real prospect of it happening and its potential harm.
Samuel Smith Old Brewery, Simpson v Secretary of State, Gambone v Secretary of State, R (Mansell) v Tonbridge and Malling BC
A section 73 application (to develop land without complying with conditions of a previous permission) is determined by reference to current national and local policies. Fallback is a material consideration but doesn't rewrite these policies.
Pye v Secretary of State, R v Leicester City Council, R (Stefanou) v Westminster City Council
Decision letters should be construed reasonably flexibly; the reasons must be intelligible and adequate, but the weight given to material considerations is not for the court (absent irrationality).
Bloor Homes East Midlands Ltd v Secretary of State
Simplex test: Would the inspector have reached the same conclusion if the error had been excluded?
Simplex GE (Holdings) Ltd v Secretary of State
Outcomes
The claim succeeds on Ground 2 (misunderstanding of evidence on job creation), but fails on Ground 1 (mischaracterization of the main issue).
The inspector misunderstood the claimant's evidence on job creation, rendering his weighing of that factor unreliable. However, the inspector's handling of the fallback argument, while not explicitly detailed, was not unlawful.
Similar Cases
Link Park Heathrow LLP v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors.
[2023] EWHC 1356 (Admin)
East Quayside 12 LLP v The Council of the City of Newcastle Upon Tyne
[2023] EWCA Civ 359
Protect Dunsfold Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1854 (Admin)
Whitley Parish Council, R (on the application of) v North Yorkshire County Council & Anor
[2023] EWCA Civ 92