Roger Mascall
Senior Director, Heritage, Townscape & Landscape
Comment
The role of visual openness in determining Green Belt openness
Observations on the latest Supreme Court decision
The concept of ‘openness’ when assessing planning applications in the Green Belt, and its relationship (if any) to visual impact, is a point of constant discussion. Although identified in the NPPF (and preceding PPG2) as one of the essential characteristics of Green Belts, ‘openness’ is not formerly defined.
When considering whether development is appropriate or inappropriate, paragraph 145 of the NPPF (February 2019) includes defined exceptions which are identified, with the proviso that they “would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development”. How the impact of a particular scheme on the ‘openness’ of the Green Belt is assessed has been sometimes open to interpretation.
The recent Supreme Court decision in R.(oao Samuel Smith Old Brewery) v Yorkshire County Council [2020] UKSC 3 [1] confirmed that “matters relevant to openness in any particular case are a matter of planning judgement, not law” (para 39). Most of the recent discussions and comments following this judgment have focussed on the point that confirmed that planners are not obliged by law to consider visual impact in the preservation of Green Belt openness.
However, it is interesting that the ruling has re-confirmed that, while not a legal requirement, consideration of visual openness is a relevant issue to consider when making judgements on Green Belt openness. As per the penultimate paragraph (paragraph 41):
“The whole of paras 7.121 to 7.126 of the officer’s report address the openness proviso and should be read together. Some visual effects were given weight, in that the officer referred to the restoration of the site which would be required. Beyond this, I respectfully agree with Hickinbottom J that such relatively limited visual impact which the development would have fell far short of being so obviously material a factor that failure to address it expressly was an error of law”.
The judgment reinforces guidance set out in PPG Paragraph: 001 [2] on the factors to be taken into account when considering the potential impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt, namely; “openness is capable of having both spatial and visual aspects – in other words, the visual impact of the proposal may be relevant, as could its volume”.
There is a difference between impacts on visual amenity, which are normally considered within the process of Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA), and the visual aspects of openness which are considered as part of a Green Belt Assessment. In the former, an assessment is made on the effects of development on the views available to people and their visual amenity and how this may affect character and scenic quality. In the latter, an assessment would be made on the effects of development on the visual openness of the Green Belt including impacts on long distance views, visual links to the wider Green Belt, inter-visibility between settlements and whether, if a development is temporary, restoration measures could restore the current visual aspects of openness.
The Samuel Smith verdict has provided some further clarity. However, the idea of Green Belt ‘openness’ will continue to be open to interpretation in planning judgement by decision makers, and therefore whether visual impact is a relevant factor will need to be dealt with on a case by case basis.
Our Landscape and VIA team provides expert advice to robustly consider effects on both visual and spatial aspects of Green Belt openness, as well as advising on potential effects of development on visual amenity and landscape as part of the LVIA process. For more information, or to discuss the potential impacts of a specific project on Green Belt openness, please contact Isabel Jones.
27 February 2020
[2] Reference ID: 64-001-20190722
Key contacts
