Mole Valley District Council, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor

Inappropriate development in the Green Belt requires a structured balancing exercise. The decision-maker must give substantial weight to Green Belt harm and may grant permission only where that harm, together with any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. Even then, the decision-maker must be satisfied that the circumstances are objectively capable of being described as very special. Several circumstances may have that character in aggregate. The existence of other applicants with similar difficulties does not prevent an applicant from establishing very special circumstances, although the threshold remains high. The Inspector’s assessment is reviewable on ordinary Wednesbury grounds, but an Inspector is generally uniquely placed to evaluate the weight and character of the relevant planning considerations.

Mole Valley District Council applied under section 288(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash an Inspector’s decision granting planning permission for a private gypsy site in the Green Belt.

The Inspector had allowed Mr Smith’s appeal under section 78 after the Council refused permission. The Council accepted that the Inspector had considered the relevant matters and applied the correct methodology, but argued that her conclusion that very special circumstances existed was irrational because similar accommodation difficulties were commonplace. The central issue was whether the circumstances identified by the Inspector were objectively capable of amounting to very special circumstances.

1. The application was dismissed. The Inspector’s decision was not shown to be unlawful or perverse.
2. Under paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of PPG2, inappropriate Green Belt development is subject to a general presumption against approval. The decision-maker must weigh the harm caused by inappropriateness, and any other harm, against the other considerations relied upon. Very special circumstances cannot exist unless the aggregate of the harm is clearly outweighed.
3. Clear excess of the harm does not, by itself, establish very special circumstances. The decision-maker must also be satisfied that the circumstances relied upon are objectively reasonably capable of being described as very special. Circumstances which are insufficient individually may have that character in aggregate. The approach in R (Chelmsford Borough Council) v First Secretary of State (Draper) [2003] EWHC 2978 was applied, and the aggregate approach was supported by Basildon District Council v First Secretary of State [2004] EWHC 2759.
4. The Inspector had carefully assessed the Green Belt and landscape harm, the shortage of gypsy sites, and the applicant’s acute personal circumstances and lack of realistic alternatives. She had stated and applied the correct legal test. The circumstances identified were, viewed objectively and in aggregate, reasonably capable of being described as very special.
5. The fact that other applicants might have comparable difficulties did not prevent an individual applicant from satisfying the test. Each application had to be assessed on its own merits, and the threshold remained high. The claimant was ordered to pay the First Secretary of State’s costs of £4,800. A detailed assessment was permitted in relation to the legally funded second defendant.

The Inspector allowed Mr Smith’s appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 after Mole Valley District Council refused planning permission. This court dismissed the Council’s statutory challenge under section 288(1)(b).