NPPF Para 89 Exceptions Vs 'Very Special Circumstances' - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Robert, i am not sure how much information to provide here ( as i work for a commercial organisation that provides trianing for councillors and local government officers and we cover this subject in detail in a one day course ) but here goes anyway. You are right, your colleague is wrong!  Inappropriate development is by defintion harmful to the purposes of the Green Belt , the most important of which is openness. Inappropriate development requires VSC to overcome that harm. Openness is the absence of development. As all development affects openness to a greater or lesser degree, in theory all development must be harmful. However, that was clearly not the intention when the Government wrote the NPPF. Who says so? the courts. Who determines how policy should be interpreted ? the courts. ( See Tesco v Dundee City Council) There is  a seminal court case known as Timmins V Gedling which essentially says all development is harmful except those identified in paragraph 89  ( it touched on para 90 too) of the NPPF. The court went on to say development in that closed list is not inapprpriate development  and as such it is not harmful, and therefore VSC need not be provided. There is a second seminal court case Lee Valley v Epping Forest 2016 where the judge went a stage further by saying that where a development meets the criteria in the 6 bullet points in para 89 there is no further assessment required i.e. there is no effect on openess or encroachment etc. This requires a 'jump' in thinking, so instead of saying its for the purposes of agriculture therefore is appropriate development but it sticks out in a field, that second assessment is no longer applicable. If you want to discuss further then DM me please, but i hope this helps