Introduction

The case of Monkhill Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor ([2021] EWCA Civ 74) presents a pivotal interpretation of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in the context of sustainable development and the protection of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs). Monkhill Ltd., the appellant, challenged the refusal of planning permission for a housing development project in Haslemere, Surrey, primarily situated within the Surrey Hills AONB. The core issue revolved around whether the inspector correctly interpreted paragraph 172 of the NPPF as providing a clear reason for refusal under paragraph 11d)i, thereby overriding the general presumption in favor of sustainable development.

Summary of the Judgment

The England and Wales Court of Appeal dismissed Monkhill Ltd's appeal, upholding the decision of Holgate J. The court affirmed that the inspector did not misinterpret paragraph 172 of the NPPF. It was determined that the policy pertaining to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs, as outlined in paragraph 172, can indeed provide a clear reason for refusing planning permission under paragraph 11d)i. Consequently, the inspector's refusal of the development proposal was lawful and consistent with the NPPF's directives.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

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

• Hopkins Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] 1 WLR 1865
• Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v North Yorkshire County Council [2020] UKSC 3
• Barwood Strategic Land II LLP v East Staffordshire Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 893
• Bayliss v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWCA Civ 347

These cases collectively informed the court's understanding of how the NPPF's policies should be applied, particularly concerning sustainable development and the protection of designated areas like AONBs.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning focused on the proper interpretation of paragraph 172 of the NPPF within the framework of paragraph 11d). The key points include:

• Policy Interpretation: Paragraph 172 emphasizes that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs. This weight can constitute a clear reason for refusing planning permission under paragraph 11d)i.
• Application of Footnote 6: Policies listed under Footnote 6, which include AONBs, are deemed capable of providing clear reasons for refusal when they protect areas of particular importance.
• Balancing Exercise: While sustainable development presumes favoring development, the significant harm to protected areas like AONBs can outweigh benefits such as housing provision, leading to refusal.
• Consistency Across Policies: The court noted that similar protective policies within the NPPF, such as those for Heritage Coasts and Green Belts, operate under the same principles, ensuring uniform application across different designated areas.

The court rejected Monkhill's argument that merely assigning "great weight" does not equate to providing a clear reason for refusal. It clarified that within the policy's context, applying great weight inherently involves assessing whether the harm caused by development justifies refusal.

Impact

This judgment solidifies the authority of NPPF policies under Footnote 6 in providing clear grounds for refusing planning applications, even when there is a general presumption in favor of sustainable development. Future cases involving developments in AONBs or similar protected areas will reference this decision to support the lawful application of policy-driven refusals.

Additionally, it underscores the necessity for decision-makers to meticulously balance the benefits of development against the environmental and aesthetic impacts, reinforcing the protective intent of the NPPF's designated area policies.

Complex Concepts Simplified

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The NPPF sets out the government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It aims to ensure sustainable development by balancing economic, social, and environmental considerations.

Paragraph 172 of the NPPF

This paragraph mandates that significant weight must be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs). Essentially, it prioritizes environmental protection in planning decisions within these designated areas.

Footnote 6

Footnote 6 lists specific policies within the NPPF that relate to the protection of areas or assets of particular importance, such as AONBs, Green Belts, Heritage Coasts, and National Parks. These policies are crucial in decision-making processes for planning applications.

Presumption in Favor of Sustainable Development

Paragraph 11 of the NPPF establishes a presumption in favor of sustainable development, meaning that planning permission should generally be granted unless there are compelling reasons to refuse it. However, this presumption can be overridden by policies that protect areas of significant environmental or cultural value.

Clear Reason for Refusal

A "clear reason for refusal" is a justified, policy-based rationale that adequately explains why a planning application should not be approved. Under paragraph 11d)i, certain policies can provide such reasons, thus negating the general presumption in favor of granting permission.

Conclusion

The Monkhill Ltd case serves as a critical affirmation of the NPPF's authority in guiding planning decisions, particularly concerning environmentally sensitive areas like AONBs. By upholding the inspector's interpretation of paragraph 172, the court reinforced the principle that policies protecting designated areas can indeed provide clear reasons for refusing development proposals, thereby respecting the delicate balance between sustainable development and environmental preservation.

This judgment ensures that future planning decisions will continue to prioritize the conservation of natural landscapes, safeguarding them against developments that could compromise their beauty and ecological integrity, unless substantial countervailing benefits are demonstrably proven.