Compton Parish Council, Cranwell, Ockham Parish Council v Guildford BC, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Wisley Property Investments Ltd, Blackwell Park Ltd, Martin Grant Homes Ltd and Catesby Estates Plc

摘要

218.I reject all the grounds of challenge. The three claims are dismissed. Comment. Since its inception, the Green Belt has acquired an almost sacrosanct status. The current housing crisis represents a challenge to that status. The battle lines between those that advocate its protection and those that argue for some land to be released often divide communities, as evidenced by this decision. The importance of this decision can be seen in the way the judge treated the issue of the NPPF policy requirement that "exceptional circumstances" must be established before any land can be released from the Green Belt as part of the process of local plan review. As the judge pointed out, there is no definition of the policy concept of "exceptional circumstances" and that this is a deliberate policy decision. It was agreed by all parties that whether a particular factor was capable of being an "exceptional circumstance" in any particular case was a matter of law, but whether in any particular case it was treated as such was a matter of planning judgment. Of equal importance is the observation that "exceptional circumstances" is a less demanding test that the development control test for permitting inappropriate development in the Green Belt where "very special circumstances" exist for so doing; see also R. (on the application of Luton BC) v Central Bedfordshire Council [2015] EWCA Civ 537. The judge also sounded the familiar refrain about the dangers of judicially over-analysing the simple question of whether there are any "exceptional circumstances". Furthermore, it does not require there to be more than one individual "exceptional circumstance" and general planning needs, such as ordinary housing, are not precluded from its scope.