Ashwell Property Group Plc and Ashwell (Barton Road) Ltd v Cambridge City Council

Policy 24 of Regional Planning Guidance for East Anglia did not require a separate local-level, two-stage assessment of every proposed Green Belt release. A single Green Belt review could be undertaken through an unusually specific Structure Plan, leaving only the drawing of detailed boundaries for the identified release areas to the local plan process. Any further alteration outside those areas required exceptional circumstances under PPG2. A planning inspector’s report must be intelligible, logical and legally directed, but an error concerning policy will not justify quashing where the court is satisfied that the outcome could not have been affected.

The claimants challenged Cambridge City Council’s adoption of the Cambridge Local Plan under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Their land at Barton Road North remained within the Cambridge Green Belt and was not allocated for housing. A local plan inspector had recommended no modification, citing Green Belt purposes, public transport accessibility, flooding and the absence of housing need.

The claimants alleged that the inspector and the Council had misunderstood Policy 24 of Regional Planning Guidance for East Anglia by applying an exceptional-circumstances test instead of a two-stage test beginning with whether land could be released without significant detriment to Green Belt purposes. The alternative judicial review application was not pursued.

1. Disposition. The application under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was dismissed. The alternative application for permission to apply for judicial review was abandoned because it raised no additional issues.
2. Under section 287, the court could quash the Local Plan, wholly or partly, if it was outside the statutory powers or if the claimants’ interests had been substantially prejudiced by non-compliance with a statutory requirement. The Council was required to adopt the inspector’s recommendations under paragraph 10(5) of Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Any material error by the inspector would therefore have affected the adoption decision.
3. Policy 24 of Regional Planning Guidance for East Anglia required a Green Belt review, but it required a single review and was not prescriptive about how the review was to be conducted. The Council and the other strategic planning authority had lawfully undertaken that review through the preparation of an unusually specific Structure Plan, including detailed assessment of locations for Green Belt release.
4. The Structure Plan process therefore discharged the Policy 24 requirement, apart from the drawing of detailed boundaries for the areas identified for release. Any further alteration of the Green Belt beyond the locations specified in Structure Plan Policy P9/2c required exceptional circumstances to comply with PPG2.
5. The inspector’s reasoning was intelligible and addressed the relevant objections. The inspector was entitled to conclude that development would harm the setting of Cambridge and that the site was unsuitable because of inadequate public transport, flooding constraints and the absence of housing need. No error of law or substantial prejudice was established.