Development plan site within green belt — Joint venture to develop housing — Applicant objecting to plan — Proposal to modify green belt boundary — Whether council correctly applying national housing policy — Whether exceptional circumstances justifying release of land — Application refused
The application questioned the validity of the Havering Urban Development Plan (the plan) on grounds that it was not within the powers conferred by Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and that the requirements of Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act (Development Plan) Regulations 1991 had not been complied with. The applicant had entered into a joint venture to develop houses on a site of 12 acres east of Heron Way, Cranham, in the London Borough of Havering. The site was within the designated green belt for the London Metropolitan Area since that was first formulated in 1985 and later incorporated from the Essex Development Plan into the initial development plan. The council placed the plan on deposit in February 1991, which showed the site as remaining with in the green belt.
The council’s view was that even if the shortage of housing land were to become acute it would be wrong to release green belt land to meet demand. The company made an objection proposing a modified green belt boundary excluding the site on the ground that it was contrary to Government advice in para 12 of PPG 3 and that the boundary of the plan did not take account of requirements for housing land either up to 2001 or beyond contrary to Government advice in para 11 of PPG 2. A local inquiry was held and the council adopted the plan with amendments on April 1 1993. The applicant contended that the council failed to comply with the regulations and the Act, inter alia, by failing to construe properly national policy on green belt and development plans.
Held The application was refused.
1. The council were required to consider the effect of housing proposals on the green belt boundaries not only up to, but also beyond 2001. The boundary questioned by the company’s objection to the land had been established green belt for many years. In PPG 3 the Secretary of State confirmed that he would only be prepared to endorse any change in the boundaries of the established green belt in exceptional circumstances in accordance with the principles stated in PPG 2.
2. It was clear that the council’s proposals were putting forward an altered boundary that would be defensible and permanent.
3. On the question of the inspector’s reasons they were clear, dealt fairly with the arguments presented and were consistent with Government guidance. The sites had been in the green belt for many years and the conclusions was that the site failed the “exceptional circumstances” test. The submission was properly rejected that land should be released now in the hope that immediate release would safeguard the green belt against some unidentified future need.
Jonathan Milner (instructed by Underwood & Co) appeared for the company; David Altaras (instructed by the solicitor to the council) appeared for Havering London Borough Council.
