Turner v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & East Dorset District Council [2016] EWCA Civ 466
Turner Green Belt openness is an important Court of Appeal judgment rejecting the idea that openness can be decided by comparing cubic metres alone.
A decision-maker can consider how permanent the development is, how built-up the land would become and the visual effect on the openness presented by the Green Belt. Those factors depend on the facts of the individual site.
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
- [2016] EWCA Civ 466
- Court
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
- Judgment date
- 18th May 2016
- Judge
- Lady Justice Arden, Lord Justice Floyd and Lord Justice Sales
- Case number
- C1/2015/3507
What Turner Green Belt openness decided
The site at West Parley in Dorset contained a lawful residential mobile home and a commercial vehicle storage yard. The proposal was to replace part of that existing lawful use with a permanent three-bedroom bungalow and residential curtilage.
The developer argued that the bungalow occupied no more volume than the mobile home and a number of lorries which could lawfully stand on the site, so it could not have a greater impact on Green Belt openness.
The Inspector, High Court and Court of Appeal all rejected that approach.
Openness is not just a volumetric calculation
Sales LJ described openness as open-textured. Volume can be relevant, particularly when comparing how built-up land is before and after redevelopment, but it is not the only factor.
The Inspector was entitled to distinguish a permanent bungalow from moveable caravans and vehicles whose number and position could change over time.
Visual impact can form part of openness
The proposed bungalow would obstruct longer views into the site and appear as a dominant permanent feature. The Inspector was entitled to take that visual difference into account when comparing the impact on openness.
The Court of Appeal therefore disapproved the earlier suggestion in Timmins that it was wrong in principle to reach a conclusion on openness by reference to visual impact.
Spatial and visual openness are related but not identical
Turner also makes clear that a proposal can harm openness through its physical presence even if it is not visually prominent. Equally, visual intrusion can be relevant to the quality of openness on a particular site.
The exercise is not a fixed checklist. The decision-maker has to identify the factors which matter on the facts and make an evaluative planning judgment.
Samuel Smith later confirmed the planning-judgment approach
The Supreme Court later considered Turner in Samuel Smith Old Brewery v North Yorkshire County Council [2020] UKSC 3. It agreed that visual impact can be relevant, but stressed that it is not legally required in every openness assessment.
Read together, Turner and Samuel Smith show why openness should not be reduced either to a pure volume test or to a mandatory visual-impact test.
The NPPF wording in Turner is historical
Turner interpreted the 2012 NPPF and its former paragraph 89 brownfield exception. The underlying authority on openness remains important, but current development must be assessed against the current NPPF wording.
For today’s position, see Planning Geek’s guides to previously developed land and green belt, grey belt and brownfield land.
Read the full Turner judgment
The full Court of Appeal judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Turner Green Belt Openness Case Law Page Updated: 10th September 2026