Monkhill Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2021] EWCA Civ 74
Monkhill is an important Court of Appeal decision on the relationship between the presumption in favour of sustainable development and national policies protecting areas or assets of particular importance.
The appeal concerned housing in the Surrey Hills AONB and the operation of paragraph 11(d)(i) of the 2018/2019 NPPF.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2021] EWCA Civ 74
- Court
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
- Judgment date
- 28th January 2021
- Judge
- Sir Keith Lindblom, Senior President of Tribunals, Andrews LJ and Sir Gary Hickinbottom
- Case number
- C1/2019/1955/QBACF
A footnote policy must actually be applied
The mere fact that a protective national policy is engaged does not automatically disapply the tilted balance. The decision-maker must apply the relevant policy and decide whether its application produces a clear reason for refusing the development.
A policy expressed in terms of weight can still provide a clear reason for refusal
The developer argued that the first part of the then NPPF paragraph 172, requiring great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in an AONB, could not itself provide a clear reason for refusal because it did not contain an explicit refusal test.
The Court rejected that argument. A policy does not need to contain a self-contained formula saying “refuse unless…” before its application can yield a clear reason for refusal. The decision-maker applies the policy, gives the protected interest the weight national policy requires, considers countervailing benefits and reaches a planning judgment.
The protective policy contains its own planning balance
The Court regarded the AONB policy as requiring a balance between harm to the protected landscape and the benefits of the proposal. If the benefits do not outweigh the harm, application of the policy may provide the clear reason for refusal required by paragraph 11(d)(i). The tilted balance in paragraph 11(d)(ii) is then not applied.
Major development is not the only development protected by AONB policy
The Court also rejected the suggestion that only the part of the AONB policy dealing expressly with major development could fall within paragraph 11(d)(i). The wider protection of landscape and scenic beauty also applies to development that is not “major”.
Why Monkhill matters
The broader principle extends beyond National Landscapes. Where current national policy identifies a protective policy as relevant to the paragraph 11 exercise, the decision-maker should not merely note that the policy is engaged. It must be applied, and the outcome of that application determines whether there is a clear reason for refusal.
Policy-date warning: Monkhill interpreted the 2018/2019 NPPF. Paragraph numbers and wording have since changed, so the case should be used for its legal approach rather than by lifting historic paragraph references into a current planning decision.
Read the full Monkhill judgment
Planning Geek holds the approved Court of Appeal judgment in the protected case law library. Gold Members can open the PDF below.
Monkhill Case Law Page Updated: 11th September 2026