[2025] EWHC 2127 (Admin)

Ground 1 – The Inspector erred in law in misinterpreting the meaning and effect of Green Belt policy in the NPPF 2024, particularly [142], [153], [155] and footnote 55 thereof, in excluding from consideration harm to the openness of the Green Belt having found that the development was not inappropriate.

Ground 2 – the Inspector misinterpreted PPTS as meaning that the sites for which a planning application has been made but not decided are not “deliverable” within the meaning of footnote 4 of the PPTS.

Ground 3 – the Inspector failed to supply legally adequate reasons, and/or reach a rational conclusion on the evidence, for the conclusion that the Claimant could not demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable traveller pitches. This error is said to stem primarily from the Inspector’s failure to take account of the Examining Inspector’s Report on the Local Plan (“EI Report”) notwithstanding the fact that the EI Report was not drawn to his attention at the hearing.

Ground 1 depends on an interpretation of Green Belt policy expressly rejected by Lindblom LJ in R (Lee Valley Regional Park Authority) v Epping Forest DC [2016] JPL 1009 at [18] to [26] (“Lee Valley”).

Ground 2 is based on a misreading of the DL and amounts in substance to a challenge to the Inspector’s judgement and application of the policy, not his interpretation of its terms.

Ground 3 seeks to elevate mere supporting text in a development plan and the EI Report to mandatory material considerations.