Keep Bourne End Green v Buckinghamshire Council & Anor

In a statutory challenge to a local plan, the court reviews legality, not the planning merits. Assessing objectively assessed housing need, including the choice and use of demographic projections, is ordinarily a matter of planning judgment. National guidance urging use of the latest information does not require every newly published projection to be used where the change is not considered meaningful, or where other planning judgments justify a different approach.

Unmet housing need is capable of contributing to exceptional circumstances for altering Green Belt boundaries, but does not automatically establish them. The decision-maker must assess the circumstances as a whole, including the scale of need, the site’s sustainability and Green Belt function, and the consequences of release. Reasons need only enable a knowledgeable audience to understand the main issues and essential planning judgments.

The claimant sought statutory review under Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 of the adoption of the Wycombe District Local Plan (2013–2033). The challenge concerned the assessment of objectively assessed housing need, the use of 2016-based household projections, the release of land at Hollands Farm from the Green Belt, and the adequacy of the Habitats Regulations Assessment.

The plan had been examined by an independent Inspector, who recommended adoption subject to main modifications. The Council adopted the plan on 19 August 2019. The central questions were whether the Inspector misinterpreted national planning policy or guidance, failed to consider material matters, acted irrationally, or gave inadequate reasons.

1. Statutory challenge and procedural grounds. The court’s jurisdiction was governed by conventional public law principles. It was not permissible to re-run the planning merits. Public law grounds had to be pleaded clearly, concisely and precisely. The claimant could not introduce unpleaded points shortly before or during the hearing.
2. Housing projections. Paragraph 016 of the NPPG did not impose an inflexible legal requirement to use the latest household projections whenever possible. The expressions “wherever possible”, “meaningful change” and “housing situation” required planning judgment. The Inspector was entitled to conclude that the 2016-based projections raised doubts as to their reliability for plan-making, were only a starting point for assessing housing need, and had to be considered alongside the objective of boosting housing supply and the delay that a fresh evidence base would cause.
3. The choice of projections and the adjustments required to arrive at objectively assessed housing need were matters for the Inspector and Council. The court could not prefer the approach taken in the Guildford examination, and no inconsistency arose from updating factual housing land-supply figures while declining to update demographic projections.
4. Green Belt. “Exceptional circumstances” was a broad policy concept. Unmet general housing need was capable of amounting to such a circumstance, either alone or in combination with other factors, but did not automatically do so. The Inspector was entitled to consider the scale of unmet need, the sustainable location and deliverability of the site, its relatively weak contribution to Green Belt purposes, its semi-urban character, and the absence of material harm to the wider Green Belt.
5. Habitats assessment. The plan was part of a multi-stage decision-making process. It was sufficient that the Council had adequate information to conclude that mitigation through section 106 contributions and suitable alternative natural green space could be achieved in practice. A further appropriate assessment would be required at the development-consent stage.
6. The Inspector’s reasons enabled a knowledgeable audience to understand her conclusions and did not raise a substantial doubt as to the legality of the decision. All grounds failed and the statutory review claim was dismissed.