Local authority – Development – Green belt – Defendant council granting themselves conditional planning permission to replace outdoor education centre – Defendants stating “other material considerations” rebutting presumption against development – Whether other material considerations constituting “very special circumstances” – Whether defendants giving adequate summary of reasons – Application granted
The defendant granted to itself conditional planning permission, pursuant to section 316 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, to develop an outdoor education centre (OEC) in the green belt on a site of special scientific interest. The permission provided for the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a new headquarters building and six accommodation blocks and other ancillary buildings. The development would be five times the size of the old, giving a total gross floorspace of 1,712 m2.
The defendants, in accordance with article 22 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, provided a summary of their reasons for granting permissions. They acknowledged that the proposed development did not accord with the development plan policies controlling the types of development normally permitted in the green belt (notably paras 3.1 and 3.2 of PPG 2). However, the summary stated that other material considerations outweighed those policy considerations, namely: (i) the site was an established OEC site that had been providing a range of outdoor activities for a long time; (ii) it was the only council-owned site that could provide those activities; (iii) there was a need to provide modern accommodation to meet expectations and to cater for people with disabilities; (iv) it would offer an opportunity to reduce CO2 emissions by reducing travel; and (v) the development would not have a significant effect upon the openness of the green belt or landscape character or countryside.
The claimant, who lived near the development site, applied for judicial review of that decision contending, inter alia, that the defendants had failed to show that there were “very special circumstances” justifying inappropriate development in the green belt under paras 3.1 and 3.2 of PPG 2, and that the summary of reasons under article 22 was inadequate.
Held: The application was granted.
“Very special circumstances” were not a closed category and were not capable of definition or limitation. The decision maker’s opinion that matters amounted to very special circumstances was not determinative of the question. Such opinion or conclusion could be challenged on Wednesbury reasonableness grounds: R (on the application of Chelmsford Borough Council) v First Secretary of State [2003] EWHC 2978 (Admin); [2004] 2 PLR 34 applied.
There was a distinct qualitative difference between other material considerations and very special circumstances. Unless relevant factors fell within the development plan, they were bound to be “other material considerations”. However, such other material considerations had to amount to very special circumstances before they could justify an inappropriate development in the green belt: Buckland v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] EWHC 524 (Admin); [2001] 4 PLR 34 and Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2002] EWHC 808 (Admin); [2002] JPL 1509 considered.
Although the decision letter had not refered directly to “very special circumstances”, it was clear from the terminology that the defendants believed that the other considerations clearly outweighed the harm. Once that had been established, the “other material considerations” were deemed to amount to the “very special circumstances” required to rebut the presumption against green-belt development under paras 3.1 and 3.2 of PPG 2: R (on the application of Chisnell) v Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council [2005] EWHC 134 (Admin); [2005] 05 EG 203 (CS); R (on the application of Ling (Bridlington) Ltd) v East Riding of Yorkshire Council [2006] EWHC 1604 (Admin); [2007] JPL 396; and R (on the application of Midcounties Co-operative Ltd) v Forest of Dean Distict Council [2007] EWHC 1714 (Admin); [2007] 2 P&CR 30 considered.
However, the defendants’ decision had been flawed because an important part of their conclusions, under article 22(1)(b)(i), was that there was no other suitable council-owned site, when, in fact, no one had reached that conclusion or provided an opportunity to do so.
Patrick Clarkson QC and David Blundell (instructed by Cripps Harries Hall LLP) appeared for the claimant; Christiaan Zwart (instructed by the legal department of Surrey County Council) appeared for the defendants.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
