Introduction

The case of Monkhill Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government ([2021] EWCA Civ 74) presents a pivotal examination of the interplay between sustainable development and environmental conservation within designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs). Monkhill Ltd., the appellant, sought to challenge the refusal of planning permission for a housing development in Haslemere, which is situated predominantly within the Surrey Hills AONB. The appellant contended that the inspector misinterpreted the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), particularly regarding the weight given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs versus the presumption in favor of sustainable development. This commentary delves into the court's analysis and elucidates the legal principles established, offering a comprehensive understanding of its implications for future planning decisions.

Summary of the Judgment

Monkhill Ltd. appealed against the decision to refuse planning permission for constructing 29 dwellings in an area largely within the Surrey Hills AONB. The crux of the appeal centered on whether the inspector erred in interpreting paragraph 172 of the NPPF as providing a "clear reason for refusing" planning permission under paragraph 11d)i of the NPPF, thereby negating the "presumption in favor of sustainable development" outlined in paragraph 11d)ii.

The Court of Appeal, with Lord Justice Flaux presiding, upheld the inspector's decision. The court affirmed that paragraph 172 of the NPPF does indeed provide a clear reason for refusal when applied appropriately, particularly in conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of AONBs. The judgment emphasized that policies within footnote 6 of the NPPF, including those for AONBs, are integral in determining planning permissions and can override the presumption in favor of sustainable development when their application warrants refusal.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents that have shaped the interpretation of the NPPF:

• Hopkins Homes Ltd. v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017]: This case dealt with the interpretation of sustainable development and the balancing of environmental concerns against development needs.
• Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v North Yorkshire County Council [2020] UKSC 3: This Supreme Court decision further clarified the application of the NPPF in planning appeals, particularly concerning conservation areas.
• Bayliss v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWCA Civ 347: Addressed the concept of "great weight" in policies protecting AONBs, emphasizing the discretionary power of decision-makers in balancing harms and benefits.
• Barwood Strategic Land II LLP v East Staffordshire Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 893: Highlighted the importance of policy application in providing clear reasons for refusal.
• R. (on the application of Watermead Parish Council) v Aylesbury Vale District Council [2018] PTSR 43: Reiterated that the application of protective policies can provide clear reasons for refusal without necessarily enforcing a "tilted balance."

These precedents collectively underscore the judiciary's role in interpreting and enforcing the NPPF's policies, particularly in contexts where environmental conservation intersects with development.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on the interpretation of paragraph 11d) of the NPPF, which addresses situations where the presumption in favor of sustainable development may be overridden. Specifically, paragraph 11d)i allows refusal of planning permission if policies protecting areas or assets of particular importance provide a clear reason for refusal.

In this case, paragraph 172 of the NPPF, which emphasizes giving "great weight" to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs, was scrutinized. Monkhill Ltd. argued that mere specification of weight does not constitute a clear reason for refusal. However, the court, aligning with Holgate J.'s judgment, held that the application of paragraph 172 indeed provides a clear reason for refusal when it significantly harms the AONB's character and appearance.

The court dismissed the argument that only policies with explicit refusal criteria could fall under paragraph 11d)i. Instead, it recognized that the purpose and context of the policy imply a balancing exercise where significant harm to an AONB could outweigh development benefits, thereby providing a clear reason for refusal.

Impact

This judgment solidifies the authority of NPPF policies in guiding planning decisions, particularly within AONBs. It clarifies that policies requiring "great weight" to be given to environmental conservation can indeed override the presumption in favor of sustainable development when such development poses significant harm to protected landscapes.

Future cases will likely reference this judgment to assert the primacy of conservation policies over development proposals that adversely affect designated areas. Moreover, it reinforces the judiciary's support for environmental protection within the planning framework, ensuring that sustainable development does not come at the expense of preserving natural beauty and landscape integrity.

Complex Concepts Simplified

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The NPPF is a key document that outlines the Government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It sets out important planning principles, both in terms of achieving sustainable development and conserving the natural and built environment.

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)

AONBs are designated areas in the UK recognized for their significant landscape value. They are protected to conserve and enhance their natural beauty, ensuring that development within these areas is carefully managed and balanced against conservation goals.

Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

This principle suggests that, all else being equal, development proposals should be approved to achieve sustainable development. However, this presumption can be overridden by strong policies that protect important environmental assets, such as AONBs.

Paragraph 11d) of the NPPF

This section deals with cases where sustainable development might be at odds with other important policies. It allows for the refusal of planning permission if specific policies protecting important areas or assets provide clear reasons for doing so.

Conclusion

The Monkhill Ltd v Secretary of State case underscores the judiciary's role in upholding environmental conservation within the planning framework. By affirming that paragraph 172 of the NPPF can provide a clear reason for refusing development in AONBs, the court reinforced the strength of conservation policies against the backdrop of sustainable development. This decision ensures that the intrinsic value of protected landscapes is given due consideration, safeguarding them against developments that could compromise their character and beauty. Moving forward, stakeholders in planning and development must navigate these policies with a reinforced emphasis on balancing development needs with environmental conservation imperatives.