Satnam Millennium Ltd, R (on the application of) v Warrington Borough Council

Whether a proposal alters the general extent of a Green Belt or merely defines its detailed boundary depends on the proper interpretation of the approved structure plan as a whole. A key diagram may fix the general extent with sufficient precision, despite being diagrammatic and not based on an Ordnance Survey map. The assessment is fact-sensitive and must consider the diagram, policy text, approval material, physical features, location, Green Belt function and the reasons for the proposed change. The size of the land alone is not determinative. Where the proposal alters the approved general extent, exceptional circumstances must be demonstrated, including where land is added to the Green Belt.

The claimant sought judicial review under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 of the Warrington Borough Council Unitary Development Plan proposals map. The challenge concerned the inclusion of the claimant’s land at Peel Hall within the North Cheshire Green Belt.

The approved Cheshire Replacement Structure Plan showed the Green Belt generally extending to the M62 north of Warrington. The UDP nevertheless included Peel Hall within the Green Belt after a change in regional planning policy. The UDP Inspector concluded that the proposal defined previously unsettled detailed boundaries rather than altering the general extent of the Green Belt, so exceptional circumstances were unnecessary. The central issue was whether that conclusion was legally and factually correct.

1. Application allowed. The proposals map was quashed insofar as it included the claimant’s part of the Peel Hall site within the Green Belt. The claimant was awarded its costs, subject to detailed assessment.
2. The relevant question was whether the proposal altered the general extent of the Green Belt fixed by the approved structure plan, or merely defined detailed boundaries. That was a question of planning judgment, but the Inspector had to identify the approved general extent correctly and consider all relevant material.
3. A structure-plan key diagram is not necessarily incapable of showing a boundary by reference to a physical feature. In this case, the M62 was a substantial and unambiguous feature, and the only reasonable interpretation of the particular diagram was that it formed the southern boundary of the Green Belt north of Warrington. The diagram therefore fixed the general extent with sufficient precision.
4. The size of the site, viewed against the overall size of the North Cheshire Green Belt, could not be the sole criterion. Relevant considerations included the site’s location, Green Belt function, the existence of permanent boundaries, the diagram and policy text, and the reasons for the proposed change.
5. In the particular circumstances, extending the Green Belt across the M62 to include Peel Hall altered the approved general extent. Under paragraph 2.6 of PPG2, the alteration required exceptional circumstances. The Council had not relied on the changes in regional policy as exceptional circumstances, and the Inspector had not considered that issue.
6. The subsidiary challenge concerning the strength and permanence of the proposed boundaries failed. The Inspector had adequately concluded that the proposed boundaries were acceptable under paragraph 2.9 of PPG2, notwithstanding that they were less substantial than the M62.

The UDP was adopted on 26 January 2006 following the Inspector’s report dated 1 March 2005. The claimant then brought this first-instance judicial review. Permission to appeal was granted to the defendant.