Introduction

The case of Monkhill Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor ([2021] EWCA Civ 74) addresses pivotal issues surrounding the interpretation and application of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs). This judicial commentary delves into the Court of Appeal's comprehensive review of Monkhill Ltd's appeal against the refusal of planning permission for a housing development in the Surrey Hills AONB.

Summary of the Judgment

Monkhill Ltd appealed against the decision of the Secretary of State and Waverley Borough Council to refuse planning permission for a housing development comprising up to 29 dwellings. The primary contention revolved around whether the inspector correctly interpreted paragraph 172 of the NPPF, which emphasizes the conservation and enhancement of landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs, as a policy capable of providing a "clear reason for refusing" planning permission under paragraph 11d)i of the NPPF.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, affirming that paragraph 172 indeed provides a clear basis for refusal when applied correctly. The court dismissed Monkhill's arguments, reinforcing the integrity of the inspector's interpretation and application of NPPF policies.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

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

• 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
• Bayliss v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWCA Civ 347
• East Staffordshire Borough Council v Secretary of State [multiple citations]

These cases collectively establish a judicial trajectory that emphasizes the practical and policy-oriented interpretation of the NPPF, rather than a rigid, literal analysis.

Legal Reasoning

The crux of the court's reasoning lies in the correct interpretation of paragraph 172 of the NPPF in relation to paragraph 11d)i. Monkhill argued that the policy's directive to give "great weight" to conserving landscapes does not constitute a sufficient standalone reason for refusal. The court, however, determined that:

• Paragraph 172, when read in context, inherently involves a balancing exercise where the harm to the AONB can outweigh the benefits of development, thereby providing a clear reason for refusal.
• The term "great weight" signifies a significant consideration that, in scenarios lacking substantial benefits, justifies refusal without necessitating the application of paragraph 11d)ii's tilted balance.
• The policies within footnote 6, encompassing various protected areas and assets, uniformly support the notion that their application can independently warrant refusal of planning applications.

The court emphasized that planning policies are designed to be clear and accessible, avoiding over-interpretation. The inspector's application of paragraph 172 was deemed consistent with the NPPF's objectives, ensuring that development does not compromise the intrinsic character of AONBs.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the strength and autonomy of NPPF policies in governing planning permissions within AONBs. Key implications include:

• Clarification that policies emphasizing environmental conservation can independently justify the refusal of planning applications.
• Reinforcement of the judiciary's role in interpreting planning policies in line with their intended purpose, promoting consistency and predictability in planning decisions.
• Potentially increasing the hurdles for developers seeking permissions in designated areas, as the protective policies are affirmed as robust legal standards.

Complex Concepts Simplified

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The NPPF is a government document setting out the planning policies for England, aiming to provide a framework for local authorities to create their own local plans.

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs)

Designated regions recognized for their significant landscape value, warranting protection to preserve their natural beauty.

Paragraph 11d) of the NPPF

This section deals with situations where local plans are out-of-date or absent. It establishes a "presumption in favor of sustainable development," guiding decisions to approve applications unless specific policies provide clear reasons for refusal.

Paragraph 172 of the NPPF

It mandates that "great weight" must be given to conserving and enhancing landscapes in AONBs, influencing decisions to potentially refuse developments that harm these areas.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Monkhill Ltd v Secretary of State underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding environmental conservation within the planning framework. By affirming that NPPF policies, particularly those safeguarding AONBs, can independently justify the refusal of planning applications, the judgment fortifies the protective measures against inappropriate developments. This serves as a definitive precedent, ensuring that the intrinsic value of designated natural landscapes is preserved in the pursuit of sustainable development.