CA-2024-002732 - [2025] EWCA Civ 958

The inquiry concluded on 9 May 2023. The Council had stated in its closing submissions to the inquiry that a new green belt review was to be published shortly. That review was the Arup Review which was published by the Council on its website on 16 June 2023 as part of its evidence in connection with the emerging local plan. The draft local plan would be the subject of consultation and would have to be the subject of an examination by an independent examiner. The recommendations in the Arup Review, if reflected in the draft local plan, would be tested in that process.

The introduction to the Arup Review explains that Arup had been appointed by the Council to provide a review of the Council’s green belt and countryside “to help inform work carried out as part of the local plan” (para. 1.1). It explained that the purpose of a green belt review was to provide evidence of how different areas of the green belt performed against the five purposes of the green belt identified in the National Planning Policy Framework (“the NPPF”). It explained that a green belt review formed an important part of the evidence base and helped a council determine which changes to the green belt could be considered without damage to the purposes of including land in the green belt, and the degree to which harm to the green belt would result if development took place. It also explained that a green belt review was not a policy or decision-making document that proposed any release of green belt land, as that was for the Council to determine as part of the wider plan-making process (see section 1.2 of the Arup Review). It said that the 1^st stage SKM review was considered a robust evidence base. However, to address previous criticisms of the 2nd stage SKM review, the Arup Review said it had conducted what it described as a “more granular and comprehensive approach to identifying sub-areas for assessment” (paragraph 3.1). Those issues were then addressed in the remainder of the Arup Review including, in particular section 3. It stated that the 2^nd stage of the SKM review “is entirely replaced by this newly commissioned” green belt review (paragraph 3.5).

The sub-area of the green belt which included Appeal Site A was assessed “to perform moderately against NPPF purposes but makes an important contribution to the wider Green Belt”. It set out a detailed analysis and its conclusion in summary was that “Overall, the sub-area plays an important role with respect to the strategic land parcel, and its release in isolation or in combination would harm the performance of the wider Green Belt”.

The assessment of the sub-area of the green belt which included Appeal Site B was that it “performs strongly against NPPF purposes and makes an important contribution to the wider Green Belt”. It set out a detailed analysis and its conclusion in its summary was that “Overall, the sub-area plays an important role with respect to the strategic land parcel, and its release in isolation or in combination would harm the performance of the wider Green Belt”.

The Council, which resisted the appeal and opposed the grant of planning permission, did not send the Arup Review to the inspector nor the Secretary of State. The appellant who knew of the Arup Review at least by September 2023 (as it made representations about it to the Council) did not send it to the inspector nor the Secretary of State. Nor did Cala or Headlands send it.