Save Greater Manchester Green Belt: exceptional circumstances test for Green Belt additions upheld

The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge to the adoption of Greater Manchester's joint development plan, upholding the approach taken by planning inspectors in assessing exceptional circumstances for Green Belt additions. The case clarifies the legal framework for determining whether land should be added to Green Belt designations.

Save Greater Manchester Green Belt Limited, representing over 40 greenspace groups, challenged the adoption of the "Places for Everyone 2022-2039" development plan document by nine Greater Manchester councils. The claimant contended that planning inspectors had applied an unduly restrictive legal test when determining whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify adding 19 sites (totalling approximately 203 hectares) to the Green Belt.

The case centred on Ground 5 of the statutory review under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Initially, 49 sites were proposed for Green Belt addition. However, during examination, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority revised its position following a Court of Appeal judgement, ultimately supporting only 17 additions. The inspectors accepted these 17 and added two further sites.

Mrs Justice Lang DBE examined whether the inspectors had unlawfully constrained their planning judgement by adopting criteria presented by the GMCA and interested parties. The GMCA had proposed two main criteria: first, whether there had been a fundamental change in circumstances since the Green Belt boundary was previously established; second, whether an existing boundary anomaly existed where the Green Belt did not follow readily recognisable physical features.

The court found these criteria to be legitimate planning considerations. Significantly, the judgement noted that neither the GMCA nor the inspectors relied upon the restrictive "falsification doctrine" from the Copas case, which had attracted judicial criticism. The fundamental change criterion was held to be permissible, though not mandatory, whilst the boundary anomaly criterion derived appropriately from paragraph 143f of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Crucially, Mrs Justice Lang rejected the claimant's central argument. The judgement emphasised that the inspectors had not been constrained by the GMCA's criteria. Evidence showed the inspectors had adopted a third category of their own, broadly described as sites where "there were circumstances that need addressing". In analysing specific sites, the inspectors clearly relied upon considerations beyond the two GMCA criteria, frequently referencing broader Green Belt policy considerations. They also disagreed with the GMCA's proposed deletion of two sites, concluding these should remain as Green Belt additions.

The court addressed the claimant's submission regarding inadequate reasoning for certain sites. Applying principles from CPRE Surrey v Waverley BC and Cherwell Development Watch Alliance v Cherwell DC, Mrs Justice Lang held that detailed reasons were required only where inspectors proposed additions, disagreed with the GMCA, or identified circumstances needing to be addressed. For the remaining sites, where the inspectors agreed with the GMCA that exceptional circumstances had not been established, the reasoning was sufficient given the detailed information available about all 49 sites.

The judgement affirms that decision-makers retain appropriate flexibility when determining exceptional circumstances for Green Belt additions. Whilst criteria may lawfully be employed to structure the assessment process, they do not improperly constrain the exercise of planning judgement provided decision-makers remain alert to other material considerations. The "exceptional circumstances" test in the NPPF remains deliberately broad, with the matter left to the judgement of the decision-maker in all circumstances of the case, as established in Compton.

The claim for statutory review on Ground 5 was dismissed, with the court satisfied that the inspectors had not erred in law by adopting an unduly restrictive approach to assessing exceptional circumstances for Green Belt designations.