Q I am advising a group of residents who are monitoring the preparation of a fresh local plan. Their concern is to persuade the council to include within the green belt certain land hitherto excluded. Is it sufficient to show that a revision of the boundary will ensure the continuing provision of open space on the fringe of the area where most of them live?
A No. The council will be aware that para 2.7 of PPG 2, as construed and applied by the Court of Appeal in Copas v Windsor and Maidenhead Royal Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 180; [2001] EGCS 23, lays down a stringent test of necessity, which has to be satisfied before a green-belt boundary can be revised. An increase in the green belt is not justified unless some fundamental assumption that has so far caused the land to be excluded has been clearly and permanently falsified by a later event. The case becomes even weaker where existing planning controls are sufficient to safeguard the amenities identified by your group.
