Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council & Ors

Objectively assessed housing need cannot, without more, constitute exceptional circumstances justifying alteration of Green Belt boundaries. The decision-maker must undertake a two-stage assessment: first quantify objectively assessed need, then consider whether national policy constraints justify meeting that need in full or in part. In determining exceptional circumstances, relevant considerations include the intensity of need, constraints on the availability of sustainable land, the difficulty of accommodating development without Green Belt release, the nature and extent of Green Belt harm, and possible mitigation. A two-stage local-plan process is lawful if exceptional circumstances are substantively addressed at the first stage and later site selection gives priority to non-Green Belt land. Environmental assessment must identify, describe and evaluate reasonable alternatives and the reasons for rejecting them.

The claimant sought under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to quash parts of the Greater Nottingham Aligned Core Strategies adopted by Nottingham City Council, Broxtowe Borough Council and Gedling Borough Council. The challenged policies provided for housing growth, including development requiring alteration of Green Belt boundaries, and contemplated detailed boundary review through Part 2 Local Plans.

The claimant alleged failures to assess whether housing numbers should be reduced to avoid Green Belt release, to apply national policy on exceptional circumstances, and to comply with the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004. The central issues were whether the Inspector lawfully assessed housing need and Green Belt constraints, and whether the sustainability appraisal adequately considered reasonable alternatives.

1. Grounds 1 and 2 dismissed. The statutory challenge was akin to judicial review, and the court should interfere cautiously with planning judgment, subject to the relevant policy being properly understood.
2. The approach in St Albans CC v Hunston Properties Limited and another [2014] JPL 599 required an initial quantitative assessment of full objectively assessed housing need, followed by a distinct planning judgment on whether policy constraints justified not meeting that need. The existence of need alone could not amount to exceptional circumstances.
3. In determining whether exceptional circumstances existed for Green Belt alteration, the decision-maker should identify and engage with the intensity of need, constraints on the supply and availability of sustainable land, the difficulty of achieving sustainable development without Green Belt release, the nature and extent of Green Belt harm, and the practicable scope for mitigation. These matters need not be addressed in a rigid or judgment-like format.
4. The Inspector had regard to the need for housing, limited availability of alternative sustainable sites, the location and purposes of the Green Belt, sustainability, and the nature of the proposed release. Her conclusion that exceptional circumstances existed was legally sufficient. The two-stage approach in the ACS was not unlawful because the Inspector determined the issue substantively at the first stage. The sequential preference for non-Green Belt sites was a relevant protective measure.
5. It was unnecessary to reduce the objectively assessed need by hypothetical stages. Further consideration of a lower housing figure would have been required only if meeting the whole need lacked justification because exceptional circumstances did not exist.
6. Ground 3 also failed. Regulation 12 required reasonable alternatives to be identified, described and evaluated, with reasons for rejection. The sustainability appraisal considered high, medium and low growth options and expressly addressed the consequences of not reviewing Green Belt boundaries. The evidence did not disclose an error of law.

The claim under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 was dismissed.