Ashwell Property Group Plc and Ashwell (Barton Road) Ltd v Cambridge City Council

Introduction. The Claimant (“Ashwell”) has an interest in certain land situated to the west of Cambridge known as the Barton Road North site (“the site”). In these proceedings Ashwell makes the following two applications:

However, at the outset of the hearing, on behalf of Ashwell Mr Steel QC acknowledged that the court had power to grant the entire relief sought in these proceedings, namely an order that the CLP be quashed only so far as it affects Ashwell’s property (i.e. the site), pursuant to the terms of section 287(2)(b) of the 1990 Act (as to which, see below). In those circumstances, Mr Steel made it clear that he accepted that the alternative judicial review proceedings raised no issues additional to those raised by the section 287 application and, for that reason, he indicated that the application for permission to apply for judicial review was no longer pursued. Accordingly, in the event, the only effective proceedings were concerned with the application made under section 287 of the 1990 Act.

Stated shortly, it is Ashwell’s case that in purporting to adopt the CLP, the Council has acted unlawfully and/or has failed to comply with statutory procedural requirements and that Ashwell’s interests have been substantially prejudiced by such failures.

Legal Framework. So far as material, section 287 of the 1990 Act provides as follows:

“Proceedings for questioning validity of development plans and certain schemes and orders

(1)

If any person aggrieved by a … local plan or by any alteration or replacement of any such plan or structure plan, desires to question the validity of the plan or, as the case may be, the alteration or replacement on the ground –

(a)

that it is not within the powers conferred by Part II, or

(b)

that any requirement of that Part or of any regulations made under it has not been complied with in relation to the approval or adoption of the plan, or, as the case may be, its alteration, or replacement,

he may make an application to the High Court under this section.

(2)

On any application under this section the High Court –

(a)

may by interim order wholly or in part suspend the operation of the plan, or, as the case may be, the alteration or replacement, either generally or in so far as it affects any property of the applicant, until the final determination of the proceedings;

(b)

if satisfied that the plan, or, as the case may be, the alteration, or replacement is wholly or to any extent outside the powers conferred by Part II, or that the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by the failure to comply with any requirement of that Part or of any regulations made under it, may wholly or in part quash the plan or, as the case may be, the alteration or replacement either generally or in so far as it affects any property of the applicant.”

So far as material, section 12(6) of the 1990 Act provides as follows:

“In formulating the [policies in the Local Plan] the authority shall have regard to –

(a)

any regional or strategic planning guidance given by the Secretary of State to assist them in the preparation of the plan;

(b)

current national policies;

(c)

the resources likely to become available; and

(d)

such other matters as the Secretary of State may prescribe or, in a particular case, direct.”

Section 42 of the 1990 Act, so far as relevant, provides as follows:

“Objections: local inquiry or other hearing

(1)

Where any objections have been made, in accordance with the regulations, to proposals for a local plan or for its alteration or replacement … the local planning authority shall cause a local inquiry … to be held for the purpose of considering the objections.

…

(3)

A local inquiry … shall be held by a person appointed by the Secretary of State …”

Paragraph 10(5) of Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (“the 2004 Act”) provides that, if a local inquiry is held under section 42(1) of the 1990 Act, the local planning authority “must adopt the proposals in accordance with the recommendations of the person appointed to hold the inquiry …”

The following general principles of law were, in effect, common ground.

The Factual Background. The site is currently a green field site on the edge of Cambridge and is located within the Cambridge Green Belt (“the CGB”). Cambridge is an historic city, the growth of which has been tightly constrained by the CGB. According to the evidence of Mr Colin Campbell (“Mr Campbell”), Ashwell’s Principal Planning Manager, historically the planning policies for Cambridge have sought to restrain new development in and around Cambridge and to disperse both housing and employment growth in and close to Cambridge and new development to the villages and market towns to the north of Cambridge.

It is said that the effect of this planning strategy over time, whilst protecting the historic character of central Cambridge, has led to the growth of housing development in locations further from Cambridge, unsupported by local employment, and the extension of Cambridge’s commuting hinterland with the vast majority of commuters travelling by car. At the same time, there has been significant growth in employment in Cambridge, which has exacerbated the trend for commuting by car and has resulted in high land and house prices.

This was a fundamentally unsustainable long-term growth strategy and was recognised as such by the Government when it published its Regional Planning Guidance for East Anglia in 2000 (“RPG6”). RPG6 adopted a radical new approach and sought to introduce a fundamental change in planning policy for Cambridge and the sub-region. Thus, paragraphs 5.14 and 5.15 of RPG6 are (so far as material) in the following terms:

“5.14

The location of new development should reflect the demand for and sustainability advantages of more concentrated development and, in particular, of locations in or close to Cambridge. However, this needs to be done in a way that protects and enhances the important features of the built and natural environment of the city, its setting, and the surrounding area. A sequential approach to the identification of sites is proposed starting with Cambridge’s built up area and followed by urban extensions to a Green Belt review, a new settlement and development in market towns, larger villages and existing new settlements. …

5.15

A series of independent experts appointed to consider the sub-region, culminating in the Public Examination Panel, have identified the conflict between the Cambridge Green Belt on its existing boundaries and sustainable patterns of development and movement. The justification for a review of the Green Belt is accepted. It is also agreed that a new settlement will have an essential role in accommodating development sustainably, as will market towns, larger villages, and previously established new settlements with the potential for high quality public transport to Cambridge. …”

RPG6 therefore aimed to deliver a more sustainable pattern of development by determining that growth should take place within the built up area and on the periphery of Cambridge itself (i.e. on land within the CGB) and in a new settlement close to Cambridge, in preference to outlying towns and villages. Of necessity, a review of the CGB would be required and land released from it for development. Thus Policy 22 of RPG6 is in the following terms:

“Policy 22: Location of housing and related development

Development Plans should identify locations for housing and related development for services, schools, community facilities etc. in the following order of preference;

i within the built up area of Cambridge, subject to capacity and environmental considerations;

ii on the periphery of the built up area of Cambridge, subject to a review of the Green Belt;

iii in a new settlement close to Cambridge;

iv within the built up area of market towns, larger villages and previously established new settlements where good public access to Cambridge exists or can be provided, provided that growth in car commuting can be minimised;

v by extensions to market towns, larger villages and previously established new settlements where good public transport access to Cambridge exists or can be provided, provided that growth in car commuting can be minimised.”

It can be seen that Policy 22 of RPG6 sets out a sequential approach to development. Whilst priority is given to development within the urban area of Cambridge, the RPG6 search sequence gives preference to the development of greenfield sites on the edge of Cambridge in the CGB over development in the outlying areas.

PPG2 advises that Green Belt boundaries should only be amended through development plan reviews. Policy 24 of RPG6 therefore requires the local development plans to review the extent of the CGB in order to deliver the new sustainable development approach advocated by Policy 22. On behalf of Ashwell, Mr Steel QC submitted that the correct interpretation of Policy 24 of RPG6 was therefore of critical importance to this particular claim. Policy 24 is in the following terms:

“Policy 24: Green Belt review

A review of the Cambridge Green Belt should be carried out and any proposals for changes to its boundaries included in development plans. The review should start from a vision of the city and of the qualities to be safeguarded. It should consider how far the Green Belt is fulfilling relevant green belt purposes and its influence on settlement form. Where land is fulfilling such purposes, development plans should include proposals for its use on the basis of the objectives set out in paragraph 1.6 of PPG2. If sites could be released without significant detriment to Green Belt purposes, their suitability for development should be assessed against criteria including proximity to public transport, employment and services and environmental quality.”

Following the publication of RPG6, the Council and Peterborough Council, as join strategic planning authority undertook a review of the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan (“the Structure Plan”). In March 2002, a revised draft of the Structure Plan was published and placed on deposit. It identified a number of locations on the periphery of Cambridge which should be released from the CGB.

Ashwell made representations, seeking the removal of land at Barton Road North for a strategic urban extension comprising approximately 3500 dwellings. However the Structure Plan EIP Panel rejected a strategic scale development at Barton Road North, noting that, whilst one of the participating local planning authorities had suggested the scope for a “modest review” of the CGB in this sector, such a release would not be of a strategic scale and thus “not relevant to the Structure Plan”.

The findings of the EIP Panel were, so far as material, in the following terms:

“Land North of Barton Road

8.107

The proponents of this location submitted to the Panel some fairly detailed information about its suitability. The Panel has had regard to this material insofar as it is appropriate to the strategic level. In our view, there are two main issues relating to this location. These are:

•

The impact of major development in this location on Green Belt purposes;

•

The sustainability of the location.

Impact on Green Belt purposes

8.108

There is no dispute that the Barton Road location contributes to the setting of Cambridge although the proponents of the scheme argue that other locations proposed for release in the Structure Plan are equally valuable, such as the University land in North West Cambridge.

8.109

The land at Barton Road falls within the Coton corridor which brings countryside right in to the heart of the city. Viewed from the west the distinctive skyline of the historic centre is seen against the open foreground of land in the Barton Road area. In our view, the relationship between the historic centre and the countryside in this location is critical to the character of Cambridge. Indeed, the Barton Road area of the city is distinctive in creating a very direct interface between city centre and countryside. We have some sympathy with the view expressed by South Cambridgeshire that “this is the most important location on the edge of the city”.

8.110

This interface would be largely lost by major development in the location proposed. Narrowing the Coton corridor to the extent suggested by the indicative Masterplan for this location would render it almost meaningless as “countryside”. Accordingly, we see no reason to disagree with the conclusion of the Buchanan Study that the development in this location would conflict with the purpose of preserving the unique character of the city. In our view, this conclusion applies equally to land to the north as to land to south of Barton Road.

Sustainability

8.111

There can be no argument with the fact that the proximity of this location to the city centre renders it potentially highly sustainable in terms of accessibility by slow modes (pedestrians and cyclists). Barton Road is also accessible by such modes to significant areas of employment, notably the University’s western campus. However unlike other locations proposed for release, Barton Road is not on a major transport corridor and there is no public transport at present. Thus, the development would need to support a public transport system.

8.112

The strategy proposed by the proponents of the location is for a high frequency service along Barton Road, Sidgwick Street/Silver Street and Madingley Road – to link the Barton Road location with the University employment areas. We have serious doubts about the deliverability of such a proposal. Major development in this location would be at the “end of the line” for public transport services and would need to deliver high levels of patronage to support a high quality public transport system. We question whether this is a likely proposition.

8.113

Whilst we consider that there are sustainability benefits in terms of the location’s proximity to services and facilities in the city centre we do not believe it to be particularly sustainable in terms of the provision of public transport. The need for accessibility is not related solely to the city centre and the University employment areas, but is also relevant to other parts of the city where employment opportunities exist such as Cambridge Northern Fringe, Addenbrooke’s and Cambridge Airport. The rather isolated location of the Barton Road area relative to these locations in public transport terms suggest that major development in this location could encourage car dependence, especially given the proximity to J12 of the M11.

8.114

We note the argument which has been put to us that there is a need to develop new housing in the west of the city to balance with the available jobs. Whilst we agree in principle with the desirability of achieving a jobs/housing balance so far as practical, we do not consider this to be the appropriate location in which to provide large–scale housing.

Conclusion

8.115

In our view, the potential sustainability benefits of this location do not outway the potential harm to Green Belt purposes which would result from major development. This location is the most sensitive of those identified on the western side of the city in terms of its impact on the setting of the historic part of the city. South Cambridgeshire District Council suggested that there may be scope for a modest review of the Green Belt boundary in this sector, but any resulting releases would not be of a strategic scale and, thus, are not relevant to the Structure Plan.”

In 2004 the Council published its Revised Deposit Draft version of its Local Plan (“the Plan”). The Plan did not allocate the Barton Road North area for development and proposed its retention in the CGB.

The Council received representations and objections in respect of the Revised Deposit Draft Plan, including from Ashwell. Recognising that the Plan was looking at smaller releases from the CGB (strategic releases having been identified through the Structure Plan Review), Ashwell put forward a significantly smaller site (i.e. the site in question) than that which it had promoted at the Structure Plan EIP Panel. Ashwell objected to the failure of the Council to exclude the site from the CGB and its decision not to allocate the site for a mixed use development including housing. It was Ashwell’s case that the site would be able to accommodate about 350 to 400 housing units within the administrative area of the Council, incorporating a local centre, including shopping and community facilities, and with a large area reserved for open space and landscaping.

An Inspector was appointed to hear unresolved objections to the Plan, which he did at a Local Plan Inquiry in the autumn of 2005. Ashwell both prepared written representations and appeared at the Local Plan Inquiry to pursue its objections to the plans.

The Inspector’s Draft Report was initially submitted to the Council in April 2006. The Council then submitted comments to the Inspector, which were mainly of a financial nature. The final version of the Inspector’s Report was received by the Council on 16^th May 2006. The Inspector recommended that the site should not be excluded from the Greed Belt for the following reasons:

“Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

5.51.1

This area of Cambridge is not one of those identified in Structure Plan Policy P9/2c for housing and mixed use development, and where local planning authorities are required to carry out a review of the Green Belt. Studies of the wider Green Belt west of the City have identified little scope for change if the purposes of this part of the Green Belt are to be maintained, a conclusion endorsed by the Structure Plan EIP Panel in considering a proposal for development in this location of a far larger scale than proposed now.

5.51.2

The Council’s own more detailed review of the inner Green Belt boundaries identifies a smaller area including this omission site as having only a medium importance to the setting of the City and a medium importance to the Green Belt. I agree with the Council that development on the omission site would have at least a medium effect on the Green Belt, as it would have a detrimental impact on views of the City Centre from rising ground to the west. I also note that the objection would result, for the present at least, in a boundary that is not defined on the ground.

5.51.3

Land has been released from the Green Belt south of Addenbrooke’s Hospital and between Madingley Road and Huntingdon Road, but that is as a result of the recommendations of the Structure Plan EIP Panel. There is no justification in terms of housing need for the removal of this site from the Green Belt.

5.51.4

Turning to the tests in paragraph 31 of PPG3, the major objections raised by the Council to the site’s allocation relate to accessibility by public transport to jobs, shops and services, and flooding issues. On accessibility, the site is not particularly close to local services and facilities. Whilst cycle and pedestrian accessibility to the City and Cambridge University’s West Cambridge site is reasonable, bus services would need significant improvement to make the site reasonably accessible by public transport to the City Centre and to employment areas. The Structure Plan EIP Panel expressed serious doubts as to whether even the significantly larger development proposed at that stage at Barton Road would be able to deliver the high level of patronage to support a high quality public transport system. What is proposed here would be much smaller, even if it incorporated land in South Cambridgeshire and would be even less able to support long-term public transport improvements.

5.51.5

A significant part of the site is identified as being at risk of flooding. It might be possible for improvements to be made to the Bin Brook to increase flood capacity, both to increase the developable area of the site and to alleviate existing problems affecting nearby residents. But the absence of any evidence as to whether the development would be able to fund adequate improvements, or any details as to the view of the Environment Agency on the proposed allocation, leads me to conclude that the current risk of flooding represents a significant constraint on the development of the site.

5.51.6

For all these reasons, I conclude that this site should not be allocated for housing, and that there are no exceptional grounds for altering the Green Belt boundary in this location.

Recommendation

5.51.7

I recommend no modification to the RDD.”

As I have already indicated, because this was a plan prepared under Schedule 8 of the 2004 Act, the Inspector’s recommendation was binding upon the Council. The Council resolved to adopt the Plan on 20^th July 2006. The notice of adoption is dated 25^th July 2006.

The Parties’ Submissions. As Mr Steel pointed out, it was common ground that the Council was obliged to adopt the proposals in accordance with the recommendation of the Local Planning Inspector (see paragraphs 7 and 22 above). Mr Steel therefore submitted, uncontroversially, that any errors of law made by the Inspector in arriving at his recommendation would necessarily taint the Council’s decision to adopt the CLP.

It was Mr Steel’s submission that, in the event, both the Council and the Inspector fundamentally misunderstood the requirements of Policy 24 of RPG6 and thus failed to apply the correct test for determining whether land (in particular, the site) should be released from the CGB.

Mr Steel contended that, in determining whether the site should be released from the CGB, both the Council and the Inspector were obliged by the terms of Policy 24 to consider (i) whether site could be released without causing “significant detriment” to Green Belt purposes and then (ii) to assess its suitability for development against a range of other criteria. Mr Steel submitted that this constituted a “two-stage test”, that the correct application of each stage was critical to the proper, lawful application of the overall test and that to misunderstand and/or misapply either stage (in this case, the first stage) would constitute an error of law.

It was Mr Steel’s submission that the Inspector had, in the event, misunderstood and misapplied the first stage of the test by concluding that there were no “exceptional grounds” for altering the CGB boundary at the location of the site and removing the site from the CGB: see paragraph 5.51.6 of the Inspector’s report, quoted above. Mr Steel contended that, in applying a first stage “exceptional grounds” test, the Inspector had failed to apply the correct “significant detriment” first stage of the overall test stipulated by Policy 24 of RPG6: see the wording of Policy 24, quoted in paragraph 14 above.

In short, it was Mr Steel’s submission that the Inspector had fallen into error by his misunderstanding of Policy 24 and had thus applied the wrong test for the release of Green Belt land on the periphery of Cambridge (i.e. by applying an “exceptional grounds” as opposed to the correct “significant detriment” test) with the consequence that the Council’s decision to adopt the CLP was infected with the same error of law. Mr Steel went on to submit that the same error has been made by the Council and, in support of that submission, he referred, in particular, to paragraphs 75 to 85 of the first witness statement of Mr David Roberts (“Mr Roberts”), the Council’s Planning Policy Manager.

Mr Steel submitted further that the fact that the Inspector found that the site (currently) should not be released for development (e.g. because of unresolved accessibility and flooding problems: see paragraphs 5.51.4 and 5.51.5 of the Inspector’s report, quoted above) is not a sufficient answer. Mr Steel contended that such an approach is simply an application of the second stage of the Policy 24 two-stage test, namely the assessment of the site’s suitability for development against various relevant criteria, including proximity to public transport, employment, services and environmental quality.

Mr Steel submitted that it is of considerable importance to a developer such as Ashwell to know whether the site can be released without significant detriment to Green Belt purposes (i.e. whether the site meets the requirements of the first stage of the Policy 24 two-stage test). Mr Steel maintained that the Inspector’s conclusion on the first stage of the Policy 24 two-stage test (correctly considered and applied) is in itself of material importance to Ashwell. He submitted that the second stage of the test (i.e. determining the site’s suitability for release by reference to the various criteria) may be able to be satisfied in the future (e.g. by devising a flood alleviation scheme) and that, in any event, the relative importance of the various stage-two criteria may change over time, particularly if allocated sites in the Plan fail to come forward as planned.

On behalf of the Council, Mr Bird submitted that, as is clear from its terms (note the use of the expression “any proposals”), Policy 24 of RPG6 does not seek to prejudge the Green Belt Review and is neutral as to whether that review would or would not lead to any amendment to the CGB boundaries. Mr Bird stressed that “review” does not equate with “revision” and, for that reason, the sequential approach to housing site identification qualifies the category of urban extensions to Cambridge by stating that their acceptability is “subject to a Green Belt review” (see paragraph 5.14 and Policy 22 of RPG6 quoted above).

Mr Bird submitted (correctly in my view) that Policy 24 of RPG6 anticipated a single act of review and did not create any presumption that there would be significant Green Belt land release. I agree that this is clear from the Report of the Panel who conducted the public examination into its draft version, as follows:

“such a review should be undertaken to a brief agreed between the three local authorities most directly involved …” (see paragraph 386).

“carrying it out does not imply that land will be released on a significant scale… ” (see paragraph 385).

Mr Bird pointed out that, following publication of RPG6, the Council and Peterborough City Council commenced preparation of the new Structure Plan. In order to inform its preparation, the Standing Conference of East Anglian Local Authorises (SCEALA), which includes all of the local authorities responsible for the CGB, commissioned the Cambridge Sub-Region Study. The purposes of this study were:

Mr Bird submitted that this joint working between the strategic and local planning authorities to undertake a single act of review of the CGB fully complied with the requirements of Policy 24 of RPG6. I agree with that submission.

It was Mr Bird’s contention that the process, as undertaken, assessed the CGB against a vision of the City, assessed sites forming the inner Green Belt and identified locations that could be released without significant detriment (see paragraphs 11 to 13 of Mr Roberts’ second witness statement).

Mr Bird emphasised that the EIP Panel had recognised that the detailed work that had been undertaken enabled the draft Structure Plan to be unusually specific, as follows:

“Policy P9/2 is based on a great deal of detailed work examining capacity in a sequential way across the Cambridge Sub-Region, firstly by the Buchanan Study and then jointly by the LPAs in preparing the Structure Plan. This together with the further detailed examinations of locations for the new settlement and for Green Belt releases, is work required under RPG6 which would otherwise have had to be undertaken at Local Plan level. It is therefore appropriate, in our view, for Policy P9/2 to be reasonably clear and precise about where housing growth should be located within the Sub-Region” (see paragraphs 7.20 of the Panel Report).

“… we accept that the process of identifying general location for the release of land for development has been carried out as part of this Structure Plan. Subject to our conclusions on the particular locations identified in Policy P9/3c, we see no reason to depart from the requirement in Policy P9/3b that LPAs look to release land for possible future development in particular locations as set out in Policy P9/3c” (see paragraph 8.18 of the Panel Report).

The EIP Panel went on to make it clear that it was satisfied that there were good reasons for this degree of specificity ( see paragraph 8.25 of the Panel Report) and that selection of the specified location had been “rigorous” (see paragraph 8.26 of the Panel Report).

Mr Bird emphasised that the Structure Plan, as approved, identifies the dwelling requirement for the Cambridge Sub-Region, including 8000 dwellings “on the edge of Cambridge subject to review of Green Belt boundaries” and in Policy 9/1 refers to “locations which are subject to Green Belt review”. As Mr Bird pointed out, these locations are then identified on the key diagram and they do not include the site.

Mr Bird then referred to the Policy P9/2b of the Structure Plan, as approved, which is in the following terms;

“Local Planning Authorities will carry out a review of the Green Belt in their areas to identify the boundaries of the land to be released from the Green Belt to serve the long term development needs of Cambridge, in the locations indicated on the key diagram and set out in Policy P9/2c.”

Mr Bird stressed that, given its unusual specificity, the Structure Plan, as approved, did not impose any requirements for a further review of the CGB to be undertaken by the local planning authorities in drawing up their development plans.

Mr Bird acknowledged that the explanatory memorandum to the Structure Plan included the following:

“the review of the inner Green Belt boundary must also consider longer-term development needs. Local Planning Authorities will be expected to reconsider requirements beyond 2016 and identify areas to be safeguarded to meet those needs. Smaller non-strategic sites may also be identified at this stage”; see paragraph 9.34.

However, he submitted that the reference to “review” in the explanatory memorandum can only refer to the review for the purposes of identifying boundaries required by Policy P9/2b of the Structure Plan as approved. I agree with that submission, which is plainly correct

I also agree with Mr Bird’s further submission that the reference in the explanatory memorandum to smaller non-strategic sites allowed for but did not require release of smaller Green Belt sites and I agree with his submission that this did not impose any requirement for a further review of the CGB at local level.

Mr Bird emphasised that the EIP Panel’s conclusion was that, with its recommended changes, the Structure Plan met the requirement of RPG6 to provide for the short, medium and long term needs of Cambridge up to and beyond 2016 (see paragraph 8.117 of the Panel’s report).

It was Mr Bird’s submission that it was the identification through the Structure Plan process of the areas for release from the Green Belt which provided the exceptional circumstances justifying revision of the general extent of the Green Belt and, in turn, the detailed boundaries for those areas through local plans, as required by PPG2. Mr Bird pointed out that, in preparing its draft Local Plan the Council had reviewed the CGB in order to identify the boundaries of land to be released to serve the long term development needs of Cambridge in the locations specified in Structure Plan Policy P9/2c. Mr Bird stressed that this process was informed by the Cambridge Sub-Region Study and the Council’s own inner Green Belt Boundary Study 2002, which also concluded that the site should remain within the Green Belt (see paragraph 58 of Mr Roberts’ first witness statement).

Mr Bird emphasised that, in objecting to the local plan, Ashwell at no time contended;

Mr Bird submitted that it is clear from the evidence submitted to the Local Planning Inquiry by reputable planning consultants acting on Ashwell’s behalf, that their case for release of the site from the CGB was founded on an alleged failure of the draft Local Plan to make adequate provision for housing to meet the Structure Plan housing requirement.

Mr Bird then summarised the approach of the Inspector as follows.

Mr Bird submitted (correctly in my view) that the Inspector’s approach, as summarised above, accorded with PPG2 and the Structure Plan with which the Local Plan had to be in general conformity.

Having regard to all the foregoing points, Mr Bird submitted that neither the Council nor the Inspector had given an interpretation to Policy 24 of PPG6 that the words in their context could not possibly justify. He therefore submitted that there was no error of law as alleged.

I agree with those submissions. In my view, the Green Belt review required by Policy 24 of RPG6 was undertaken by the Council and its fellow local authority in their preparation of an unusually specific Structure Plan, which undertook work which would otherwise have had to be undertaken at local level. I am satisfied that such an approach accords with Policy 24 of RPG6, which requires a single act of review and is not prescriptive as to how that review is to be undertaken.

In my judgment it was neither irrational nor otherwise unlawful for the Council and the Inspector to regard the Structure Plan process as having discharged the requirements of Policy 24 of RPG6 for its area, save for the drawing of detailed boundaries of the areas identified in Structure Plan Policy P9/2 (see Mr Roberts’ second witness statement at paragraph 28).

I am satisfied that, properly understood, there was no departure from Policy 24 of RPG6. In this particular case, the Structure Plan process discharged those policy requirements. Accordingly, any further alteration to the CGB beyond those provided for by Policy P9/3c of the Structure Plan required the demonstration of exceptional circumstances in order to comply with PPG2.

To the extent that it is suggested that the basis for the decision to retain the site in the CGB is not understood, I am satisfied that there is no substance in any such complaint. Ashwell failed to make out a case of exceptional circumstances in that the Inspector was satisfied that the land should be kept open for Green Belt purposes (development would have a detrimental effect on the City viewed from the west) and was unsuitable for development (on sustainability and flooding grounds). I agree with Mr Bird that those reasons as expressed by the Inspector properly addressed Ashwel’ls duly made objections.

Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied that this application must be and is hereby dismissed.