Green light for further desecration of the Green Belt

… and by extension, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

This case was a 92,000 sq m glasshouse on Green Belt land. The Court of Appeal decided that:

The glasshouse was appropriate, since it was a “building for agriculture” under the first bullet of paragraph 89 of the NPPF. The Regional Park Authority contended that an appropriate proposal caused no “definitional harm” but that it could cause “actual harm” to the openness of the Green Belt, or to the purposes of including land in it, and that any such actual harm should be given “substantial weight” under paragraph 88 of the NPPF.

In the Court of Appeal Lord Justice Lindblom rejected the Regional Park Authority’s argument. He said it would have marked an “important but unheralded change” from previous Green Belt policy under PPG2 and that it would negate the purpose of categorising agricultural buildings as appropriate.

Lord Justice Lindblom added: “Development that is not, in principle, ‘inappropriate’ in the Green Belt is, as Dove J. said….., development ‘appropriate to the Green Belt’.”