Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, R (on the application of) v Epping Forest District Council & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, Regional Park Authority, appealed against the dismissal by Judge Dove of its judicial review claim challenging planning permission granted by District Council for a large glasshouse development by an interested party, Nursery Company, adjacent to their nursery in The City, Essex. The proposed development involved constructing a 92,000 square metre glasshouse on approximately 18 hectares of farmland and restored mineral workings within the Metropolitan Green Belt and Regional Park, near a Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site. The Regional Park Authority objected on grounds including harm to the Green Belt, conflict with national and local planning policies, and potential effects on the SPA. The District Judge dismissed all grounds, and the Regional Park Authority appealed on three main issues.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge erred in concluding the council correctly interpreted and applied national and local policy concerning the "openness" of the Green Belt.
2. Whether the judge erred in rejecting the argument that the council failed to apply the statutory duty under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to determine the application in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise, and misunderstood the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) presumption in favour of sustainable development.
3. Whether the judge erred in concluding the council properly discharged its duty under article 6 of the Habitats Directive and regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 to consider the need for an appropriate assessment of the development's implications for the Lee Valley SPA.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The council misinterpreted national and local policies by failing to give substantial weight to harm to the Green Belt's openness, even for agricultural buildings, which are categorized as appropriate development but can still cause actual harm.
• The council failed to apply the statutory presumption in favour of the development plan under section 38(6), and misunderstood the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development, wrongly balancing harms and benefits.
• The council improperly delegated or abdicated its duty under the Habitats Directive and regulations by relying excessively on Natural England's views without conducting its own appropriate assessment, and failed to consider updated ecological data.

Respondent's Arguments

• The council correctly interpreted the NPPF policies, recognizing that agricultural buildings are appropriate development in the Green Belt and not harmful to openness by policy definition, so no substantial weight to harm to openness is required.
• The officer's report and council decision properly applied section 38(6) of the 2004 Act and balanced the relevant policies, including acknowledging the outdated local plan policy for glasshouse development, and the benefits of sustainable economic development.
• The council lawfully discharged its duties under the Habitats Directive and regulations, properly considering Natural England's expert advice and concluding that no appropriate assessment was required given the mitigation measures and evidence before it.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the Green Belt policies in the NPPF and local plan, focusing on the distinction between "inappropriate" and "appropriate" development. It held that agricultural buildings fall within a category of appropriate development that, by policy, are not harmful to the openness or purposes of the Green Belt, regardless of size or location. The court rejected the appellant's argument that substantial weight must be given to any harm to openness even for appropriate development, finding this inconsistent with the NPPF's text and established case law.

The court confirmed that the planning officer and council correctly applied these policies, recognizing that while the proposed glasshouse would affect the character and visual amenities of the area, it was not harmful to the Green Belt's openness as defined by policy. The officer's report was found to be legally sound, providing a balanced assessment of economic benefits, policy conflicts, and environmental impacts.

Regarding the statutory presumptions, the court found the officer properly acknowledged the conflict with certain local plan policies, including the outdated glasshouse policy, and balanced these against the benefits of sustainable economic development. The officer's use of the phrase "presumption in favour of sustainable economic development" was considered an acceptable expression of the NPPF's broader presumption in favour of sustainable development and consistent with the statutory duty under section 38(6) of the 2004 Act.

On the Habitats Directive and regulations, the court held that the council lawfully discharged its duties as competent authority. It was entitled to rely on Natural England's expert advice that, with mitigation, the development was unlikely to have a significant effect on the Lee Valley SPA and Ramsar site. The court rejected the appellant's claims that the council improperly delegated its decision or failed to consider updated ecological data, finding the decision was reasonable and supported by sufficient evidence. The precautionary principle was respected, and the absence of an appropriate assessment was lawful.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision was to DISMISS THE APPEAL.

This means the planning permission granted by the council for the glasshouse development stands. The court confirmed the correct interpretation and application of national and local Green Belt policies, the lawful exercise of the statutory presumption in favour of the development plan and sustainable development, and proper discharge of duties under the Habitats Directive and regulations. No new legal precedent was established; the decision affirms existing planning law principles and the lawful reliance on expert ecological advice in planning decisions.