Inspector misinterpreted policy allowing "reasonable expansion" of business in midlands green belt, High Court rules

The High Court quashed the planning inspector's decision not to overturn a midlands council's refusal of permission for an existing business to expand its premises into the green belt.

The judge found that the inspector had misinterpreted local planning policy supporting "the reasonable expansion of established businesses into the green belt" under certain circumstances and had failed to consider that the Council had allowed another local business to expand under the same policy.

Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council had refused Pertemps Investments Limited's (Pertemps) application to expand its headquarters at the Grade II-listed Meriden Hall near Coventry by erecting an office building with basement car parking on an existing car park. The Council considered that the proposal conflicted with the green belt policies in the Solihull Local Plan because it was "inappropriate development" in the green belt which could not be permitted except in "very special circumstances". Pertemps appealed the decision and its appeal was dismissed by a planning inspector.

The High Court accepted Pertemps's argument that the inspector had made errors in his interpretation of the Council's green belt policies, which included the wording: "the reasonable expansion of established businesses into the green belt will be allowed where the proposal would make a significant contribution to the local economy or employment, providing that appropriate mitigation can be secured".

Mr Justice Lindblom said the inspector had been wrong to interpret the policy as allowing only the extension of existing buildings as permitted by paragraph 89 of the NPPF, not the construction of new ones and to find that Pertemps' proposal conflicted with the policy as a result.

The judge said that the inspector "does not seem to have doubted that the development's contribution to the local economy and employment would be 'significant', or that the mitigation would be 'appropriate'" and thus should have considered it as having local policy support. Had the inspector given proper consideration to the policy support for the proposal, the judge was of the view that he might have considered that the "very special circumstances" existed to justify the development.

Mr Justice Lindblom also agreed with Pertemps that the inspector should have considered the Council's decision in June 2014 to grant permission for Jaguar Land Rover to expand its business by constructing 3,837 square metres of new buildings and 91,170 square metres of hardstanding on green belt land. In that case the Council had found that its green belt policy allowed for such development. The judge said this decision was a material consideration that ought to have been taken into account by the inspector. He said Pertemps was entitled to expect a consistent approach to the interpretation of the policy, or at least an explanation of why the inspector's interpretation differed from the Council's in the earlier decision.

Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com, represented Pertemps in the case. Planning expert Matthew Fox of Pinsent Masons said: "This case is useful in confirming that whilst local plan policies cannot add to the categories of appropriate development in the green belt set out by paragraph 89 of the NPPF,as established in the Timmins and Fordent Holdings cases, they can be used to provide support to the 'very special circumstances' that can allow inappropriate development."

"This case will be able to be considered by other major employers in Solihull attempting to undertake 'reasonable expansion of businesses' in the green belt," said Fox.  "It shows that this expansion does not need to be limited to extensions but can also involve the construction of a new building or new buildings, which might or might not be development within one of the exceptions in paragraph 89."

"The Judge made reference to the Council's previous consideration of the relevant policies as being important as they are the authors of the policies. The fact that the inspector had not explained why he felt this case should be treated differently was an important aspect of this case. Developers should therefore consider and draw attention to how Councils have previously considered their own policies when making appeals," he said.