Wychavon District Council of Civic Centre, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Ors

Under PPG2, inappropriate development in the Green Belt requires a two-stage assessment. The decision-maker must first identify circumstances properly capable of being described as very special. The decision-maker must then ask whether those circumstances clearly outweigh the harm caused by inappropriateness and any other harm.

The second question cannot itself define the first. Commonplace factors may in combination amount to very special circumstances, but three ordinary factors will not necessarily do so. A decision based on treating any considerations that outweigh Green Belt harm as thereby constituting very special circumstances is erroneous in law.

The claimant local planning authority challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 an Inspector’s decision granting the defendants temporary permission for one mobile home and one touring caravan in the Green Belt.

The Inspector accepted that the development was inappropriate and harmful, but considered that the forthcoming assessment of gypsy-site need, the general unmet need for sites and the absence of an available alternative site together clearly outweighed the harm. The central issues were whether he had applied the correct PPG2 test and whether those factors could amount to very special circumstances.

1. The claim succeeded and the Inspector’s decision was quashed. The Secretary of State accepted that the decision involved an error of law, but the defendants resisted the challenge.

2. PPG2 paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 impose a two-stage test. First, the decision-maker must identify circumstances capable of being described as more than merely special. Secondly, the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, together with any other harm, must be clearly outweighed by other considerations. The latter balancing exercise does not supply the independent meaning of “very special circumstances”.

3. The approach stated by Sullivan J in R (on the application of Chelmsford Borough Council) v First Secretary of State [2003] EWHC 2978 Admin was correct. R (on the application of Basildon District Council) v First Secretary of State [2004] EWHC 2759 Admin did not depart from that approach. Ordinary factors can combine to produce something very special, but whether they do so remains a matter of planning judgment.

4. The Inspector’s reasoning showed that he treated the considerations as very special because they clearly outweighed the harm. The repeated use of “therefore” demonstrated that he had reversed the required sequence. Even on a benevolent reading, that was an error of law.

5. The factors relied on for the temporary permission were incapable of amounting to very special circumstances. The forthcoming regional and local assessment, the local authority’s intention to allocate sites, the general unmet national need and the absence of an alternative site for this family were commonplace. Their combination did not acquire the required exceptional character. The concern that the reasoning would make similar Green Belt applications difficult to resist was justified.

6. The court therefore quashed the decision, refused permission to appeal, extended the time for an application to the Court of Appeal for permission until 14 days after receipt of the transcript, and made the stated costs and public-funding assessment orders.

The judgment concerned a statutory planning challenge to an Inspector’s decision granting temporary planning permission. No earlier court judgment is stated.