Chelmsford Borough Council, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor

Under PPG2, inappropriate development in the Green Belt is harmful by definition and must not be approved unless there are very special circumstances. The circumstances relied upon must be objectively capable of being described as very special; it is insufficient that the decision-maker considers them weighty enough to outweigh Green Belt harm. The balancing exercise must include both harm by reason of inappropriateness and any further harm. Personal circumstances, including educational needs, may in principle qualify, but ordinary educational needs do not automatically do so. The requirement applies equally to the Secretary of State, inspectors and local planning authorities.

The claimant local planning authority applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the Secretary of State’s decision allowing an appeal and granting conditional permission for the retention of a gypsy caravan site in the Green Belt.

The Secretary of State accepted that the development was inappropriate and harmful, but concluded that the harm was limited and that the educational needs of the applicant’s two children amounted to very special circumstances clearly outweighing it. The central issue was whether ordinary educational needs, in the circumstances identified, could properly satisfy PPG2’s requirement for very special circumstances.

Application allowed and decision quashed. The Secretary of State was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs, summarily assessed at £4,590.

1. PPG2 required inappropriate development in the Green Belt to be treated as harmful by definition. The decision-maker had to consider both that harm and any further harm, including harm to openness or the purposes of the Green Belt. The conclusion that harm was limited could lawfully be an overall conclusion embracing both categories, and no particular verbal formula was required: Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2002] EWHC Admin 808; South Bucks District Council v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions [2003] EWHC Civ 687.
2. There was no prescribed list of very special circumstances. Whether a circumstance was very special had to be judged in the context of the particular application, and the weight given to planning considerations was primarily for the decision-maker, subject to Wednesbury reasonableness: Brentwood Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and Gray [1996] 72 P&CR 61; ELS Wholesale (Wolverhampton) Limited v Secretary of State for the Environment [1987] 56 P&CR 69.
3. That discretion did not permit the decision-maker to define very special circumstances as any consideration which outweighed Green Belt harm. The circumstances had independently to be capable, viewed objectively, of being described as very special. Otherwise the words “very special” would lose their independent effect and the policy would be rewritten.
4. Personal circumstances, including educational needs, could in principle constitute very special circumstances. However, the educational needs of the two children in this case were entirely ordinary. There was no evidence of special educational needs, unusual disruption, or other feature making them exceptional. The Secretary of State therefore could not reasonably conclude that they were very special circumstances. Basildon District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] JPL 1104 did not determine that issue because the circumstances there included additional factors.
5. The same standard applied whether the decision-maker was the Secretary of State, an inspector or a local planning authority. The Secretary of State could depart from PPG2 or publish revised guidance, but having purported to apply PPG2 he was required to give full effect to its terms.