Out-Law News 3 min. read
28 Apr 2015, 3:31 pm
Planning expert Jo Miles of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com, said "the case highlights the ongoing tension between protecting the green belt and meeting housing need. Whilst the court found that the inspector in this case had adequately considered whether the 'exceptional circumstances' test was met, the judgment sets out how plan-makers and inspectors should ideally approach these issues. It will therefore be a useful decision for those currently grappling with green belt releases."
Under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) local authorities must balance the protection of the green belt with ensuring that local housing needs are met. Paragraph 83 of the NPPF allows for the alteration of green belt boundaries only in "exceptional circumstances" through the preparation or review of a local plan, and paragraph 84 says local authorities should "take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development" when drawing up or reviewing green belt boundaries.
Nottingham City Council, Broxtowe Borough Council and Gedling Borough Council adopted Aligned Core Strategies (ACS) in September 2014. The ACS required the provision of 30,550 new homes in the area between 2011 and 2028, mostly concentrated in the main built-up area of Nottingham.
The ACS also required some development in "key settlements" and "strategic locations", including up to 1,055 homes in the parish of Calverton, which they said would be allocated through Part 2 Local Plans. The Part 2 Local Plans would also review green belt boundaries where necessary to meet housing targets, prioritising the use of land that was not within green belt boundaries, the ACS said.
Calverton Parish Council applied to the High Court to have parts of the ACS quashed. The Council said the inspector examining the ACS had failed to consider whether housing numbers should be reduced to prevent the release of green belt land, and had failed to apply national policy in considering its release. In a decision issued last week, High Court judge Mr Justice Jay said he disagreed.
The judge said that, after establishing the objectively assessed housing need in the area covered by a development plan document, an inspector should ideally consider the "acuteness/intensity of the ... need"; the "constraints on the supply/availability of land ... suitable for development"; the "difficulties in achieving sustainability without impinging on the green belt"; the "nature and extent of the harm to this green belt"; and how far the impacts on green belt purposes could be reduced.
In the present case, Mr Justice Jay was satisfied that, whilst "an ideal approach has not been explicitly followed on a systematic basis", the inspector had "at least in legally sufficient terms, followed the sort of approach I have set out". He said the inspector had given "a logically coherent reason for holding that exceptional circumstances existed". Her report had considered "the limited availability of alternative sustainable sites", the tightly drawn inner boundary of the green belt around Nottingham and the difficulty of undertaking sustainable development beyond its outer boundary. She had then "paid regard to the purposes of the green belt, the nature and quality of the proposed impingement, and the issue of sustainability", the judge found.
The Parish Council had been critical of the two-stage approach of setting housing figures in the ACS and considering green belt boundaries in 'Part 2 Local Plans'. It had argued that exceptional circumstances were not properly considered in the ACS and that there would be no room for the consideration of exceptional in Part 2 Local Plans because weight would need to be applied to the housing figures in the ACS.
Mr Justice Jay was satisfied that the inspector "was able to reach an evidence-based conclusion as to the presence of exceptional circumstances at the first stage" and that, by modifying the ACS to include a sequential approach to the release of green belt sites "the inspector was reaching an overall state of affairs which, as she put it, 'should ensure an effective policy constraint with national policy'".
"The authorities promoting the ACS came under pressure at the examination hearing from competing groups to defend their housing numbers. The Parish Council and other local interest groups argued that housing numbers should be reduced so as to protect the green belt," said Miles.
"Others argued that the level of housing need was much higher, with some suggesting the figure should be increased to 52,050-71,700 based on the Department for Communities and Local Government's 2008 household projections. The inspector's decision, now upheld by the courts, to find the plan sound was on the basis of a commitment by the authorities to review the ACS if future household projections show that the councils’ assumptions underpinning its planned housing provision are no longer appropriate. Further green belt releases cannot therefore be ruled out if housing numbers are increased as part of an ACS review."
