Hague & Anor, R (on the application of) v Warwick District Council

Green Belt boundaries are intended to be permanent. Under PPG2, an established boundary may be changed only where exceptional circumstances make the change necessary. This is a single, integrated test, not two separate stages.

A later inspector’s view that land ought to have been included does not, by itself, establish necessity. The authority must produce material showing that the original exclusion resulted from an error, or that a fundamental assumption underlying it was clearly and permanently falsified. A rational original planning judgment cannot be displaced merely because a later inspector would reach a different conclusion.

The claimants sought judicial review under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 of an inspector’s decision to include their triangular parcel of land within the Kenilworth Green Belt.

The land had been excluded when the Green Belt was established in 1982, although it was bounded by development on two sides and by an identifiable hedgerow. The inspector concluded that exceptional circumstances existed because the boundary was an anomaly and the land had a visual and functional relationship with adjoining Green Belt land. The central issue was whether that reasoning satisfied the necessity requirement in PPG2.

1. The claim succeeded. The inspector’s decision to include the land in the Green Belt was quashed.
2. PPG2 requires an established Green Belt boundary to be altered only where exceptional circumstances necessitate the change. This is one integrated test. The requirement of necessity gives additional weight to the permanence of Green Belt boundaries.
3. The principles in Carpets of Worth Ltd and Wyre Forest District Council [1991] 2 PLR 84 remained relevant. The preparation of a new local plan was not itself an exceptional circumstance, and an extension of the Green Belt had to be justified by the purposes for which the Green Belt was designated.
4. The inspector relied substantially on Copas v Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead [2002] 1 P&CR 199. That case explained that necessity ordinarily requires a fundamental assumption underlying the original exclusion to have been clearly and permanently falsified by a later event. The language was not to be applied mechanically, since a later discovery of an original error could also justify correction.
5. However, the evidence did not establish that the original exclusion was an error or that the former administrative boundary was the sole reason for it. The boundary was identifiable on the ground and could rationally have been selected because the land formed an indent between existing development. The later inspector’s different planning judgment could not itself demonstrate exceptional circumstances necessitating a change.
6. The council bore responsibility for producing material showing that the original decision was erroneous. Its late witness statement did not disclose the research or material supporting its conclusions and added nothing of substance.
7. The costs were to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed. The court declined to grant permission to appeal, observing that the case raised no point of principle and concerned the application of the law to the facts.

The judgment records the inspector’s decision under challenge but does not state a prior court judgment or appellate stage.