Copas & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

A ministerial statement clarifying Green Belt policy does not necessarily introduce a new policy or alter the statutory planning test. Unmet housing demand, including demand for affordable housing, is not by itself sufficient to constitute very special circumstances, although each case remains fact-sensitive. The weight given to material considerations is ordinarily a matter of planning judgment.

Procedural fairness requires parties to know the case they must meet and to have a reasonable opportunity to address material issues. An inspector need not return to the parties on government policy under rule 14(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Hearings Procedure) (England) Rules 2000. A decision letter must be read fairly and as a whole.

The claimants applied for planning permission to build 23 affordable housing units on Green Belt land. The local planning authority refused permission, and an inspector dismissed the claimants’ appeal on 19 February 2014.

The claimants applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the inspector’s decision. They alleged that the inspector had used a written ministerial statement unfairly, misunderstood its effect, and applied inconsistent weight to the availability of alternative sites.

1. The application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was dismissed. The inspector’s decision was within her powers and no relevant requirement had been breached so as substantially to prejudice the claimants.
2. The written ministerial statement did not vary or extend the National Planning Policy Framework. It clarified the existing policy that inappropriate Green Belt development should not be approved unless the harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. Its wording meant that, although each case depended on its facts, unmet demand alone was unlikely to constitute very special circumstances.
3. The inspector had not misunderstood the statement. She treated the unmet need for affordable housing as the principal consideration in favour of the proposal, but balanced it against the substantial and other harm to the Green Belt. The weight assigned to those considerations was a matter of planning judgment.
4. There was no procedural unfairness. Rule 14(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Hearings Procedure) (England) Rules 2000 requires further notification for new evidence or new matters of fact, but expressly excludes matters of government policy. The inspector was therefore not required to put the statement to the parties before deciding the appeal. The claimants had a proper opportunity to present the facts and evidence underlying their case.
5. The decision letter was to be read fairly and as a whole. The reference to significant weight when considering alternative sites, followed by some further weight in the conclusions, was not inconsistent. The inspector was assessing the issue in a wider balancing exercise and had not failed to take a material consideration into account.

Not stated in the judgment.