R (on the application of Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) and others) v North Yorkshire County Council [2020] UKSC 3
Samuel Smith Green Belt openness is the leading Supreme Court judgment on whether visual impact must form part of an assessment of openness.
The answer is no. Visual effects can be relevant to openness, but the NPPF did not make them a mandatory ingredient in every case. Which factors matter, and what weight they carry, are questions of planning judgment unless the law or policy requires otherwise.
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
- [2020] UKSC 3
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
- Judgment date
- 5th February 2020
- Judge
- Lady Hale, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lord Kitchin and Lord Sales
- Case number
- UKSC 2018/0077
Need help with a planning application?
Planning Geek isn’t just a reference site - preparing and submitting planning applications is what we do. If you’d like a hand with an application, an appeal or any other planning matter, we’d be glad to help.
What Samuel Smith Green Belt openness decided
North Yorkshire County Council granted permission to extend Jackdaw Crag Quarry, a limestone quarry in the Green Belt near Tadcaster. The extension covered about six hectares and was expected to operate for seven years before restoration.
The High Court upheld the permission. The Court of Appeal quashed it, holding that the officer should have made clear that visual impact was potentially significant to the Green Belt openness assessment. The Supreme Court unanimously restored the council’s permission.
Openness is a broad planning concept
Lord Carnwath described openness as an open-textured concept linked to the fundamental Green Belt aim of preventing urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
It is not simply a test of landscape beauty or whether development can be seen. Nor does openness mean that Green Belt land must contain no development at all.
Visual impact can matter, but it does not always have to be assessed separately
The Supreme Court rejected both extremes. It did not say visual impact is irrelevant to openness. Equally, it rejected the proposition that policy always requires visual effects to be separately assessed when deciding whether openness is preserved.
Whether visual impact is relevant depends on the development and the circumstances. That is principally a matter for the planning authority or Inspector.
Mineral extraction has particular Green Belt characteristics
The case concerned mineral extraction, which can only take place where the mineral is found. The temporary nature of quarrying and the prospect of restoration were relevant to the openness judgment.
The officer had expressly considered the proposal’s relationship to the existing quarry, its temporary character, restoration and the Green Belt purposes. The Supreme Court held that she was entitled to conclude that the proposal preserved openness.
A potentially relevant consideration is not always a legally mandatory one
The judgment is also useful beyond Green Belt cases. A planning consideration may be something a decision-maker is entitled to take into account without being something the law requires to be expressly considered in every case.
To establish an error because a matter was omitted, it is not enough to show that it might have been relevant. It normally needs to be required by the statute or policy, or so obviously material on the particular facts that it demanded direct consideration.
Do not turn planning policy into a technical legal code
Samuel Smith continues the Supreme Court’s warning against over-legalising planning policy. Broad policy concepts often require practical planning judgment rather than a rigid judicial formula.
That does not put policy beyond legal interpretation. The court decides what policy means, while the planning decision-maker applies it to the facts.
The paragraph numbers in the judgment are historical
The case interpreted the 2012 NPPF, including its former paragraph 90. The Supreme Court’s explanation of openness remains important, but current proposals must be assessed against the current NPPF rather than the old paragraph numbering.
For today’s position, see Planning Geek’s guide to green belt, grey belt and brownfield land.
Read the full Samuel Smith 2020 judgment
The full Supreme Court judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Samuel Smith Green Belt Openness Case Law Page Updated: 10th September 2026