Save Greater Manchester Green Belt Limited v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors

Whether circumstances are “exceptional” for altering a Green Belt boundary is principally a matter of planning judgment. The expression is deliberately broad and has no exhaustive legal definition. A decision-maker may adopt criteria to structure that judgment, including a fundamental change in circumstances or an anomalous boundary, provided those criteria are treated as relevant considerations rather than exclusive legal requirements. The decision-maker may also consider other circumstances relating to the site. The same general approach applies to additions and removals from the Green Belt, although the relevant factual considerations may differ. Judicial review is confined to legal error, including irrationality or failure properly to understand national policy; it does not permit the court to substitute its planning judgment.

The claimant sought statutory review under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 of the adoption by nine Greater Manchester authorities of the joint development plan document “Places for Everyone 2022–2039”. The Plan released land from the Green Belt and proposed additions to it.

Permission was granted only on Ground 5. The claimant alleged that the appointed Inspectors had unlawfully confined “exceptional circumstances” for Green Belt additions to a fundamental change in circumstances or correction of a boundary anomaly. The central issue was whether the Inspectors adopted an unduly restrictive legal test and, if so, whether any error was material.

1. Claim dismissed. The Inspectors’ report and the adoption of the Plan were not unlawful.
2. The statutory review jurisdiction under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is confined to legal error. The court cannot review the planning merits or substitute its own judgment for that of the plan-making authority or Inspectors.
3. The phrase “exceptional circumstances” in Green Belt policy is deliberately broad and fact-sensitive. Whether a factor is legally capable of amounting to an exceptional circumstance may be a question of law, but whether it does so in the particular case is a matter of planning judgment. The court should exercise caution before declaring a factor legally incapable of qualifying.
4. It was lawful for the decision-makers to use criteria to structure the assessment. A fundamental change in circumstances since the Green Belt boundary was established was a relevant, though non-mandatory, consideration. So too was an anomalous boundary that did not follow a readily recognisable physical feature. The restrictive “falsification” guidance in Copas was not adopted.
5. The Inspectors did not treat those two criteria as exhaustive. Their report expressly considered whether there were other circumstances relating to particular sites that required addressing, and they departed from the GMCA’s recommendations in relation to two proposed additions. The report therefore demonstrated that their planning judgment had not been unlawfully constrained.
6. The same general legal approach applies to additions and removals from the Green Belt, although the relevant policy factors may differ. The reasons in the Inspectors’ report were sufficient for a knowledgeable audience and no separate reasons challenge was established.

The claim for statutory review on Ground 5 was dismissed.

The claim was issued on 30 April 2024. Eyre J granted permission on Ground 5 and refused permission on Grounds 1 to 4. Fordham J refused renewed permission on Grounds 1 to 4 on 17 December 2024. The High Court then heard and dismissed the statutory review on Ground 5.