Calverton: exceptional circumstances and Green Belt review
R (Calverton Parish Council) v Nottingham City Council and others [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin) concerns Green Belt boundary changes through plan-making.
The judgment identifies matters which can help structure the assessment of exceptional circumstances. It does not create a rigid five-part legal checklist or equate the existence of housing need with an automatic justification for release.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin)
- Court
- High Court, Planning Court
- Judgment date
- 21st April 2015
- Judge
- Jay J
- Case number
- CO/4846/2014
The Greater Nottingham strategy
The challenge concerned the Aligned Core Strategies adopted by Nottingham, Broxtowe and Gedling in 2014. They provided for at least 30,550 new homes and contemplated changes to the Green Belt.
Some strategic allocations were identified directly. Other detailed boundary changes were to follow in a second stage of local plans. The claimant argued that housing numbers had effectively been settled before the Green Belt constraints were properly considered.
Jay J rejected that argument on the evidence and dismissed the section 113 challenge, including the separate sustainability-appraisal ground.
The five considerations were an ideal approach
Paragraph 51 suggested examining the intensity of housing need, constraints on suitable land, difficulties achieving sustainable development without Green Belt release, the nature and extent of the harm, and how far that harm could reasonably be reduced.
The next paragraph is important. The judge described this systematic approach as an ideal, not a prescribed form which every inspector must follow.
The question was whether the actual reasoning, read as a whole, was legally sufficient. The court found that it was, despite being less neatly structured than the suggested approach.
Housing need had to be considered in context
The court rejected circular reasoning in which the mere identification of housing need automatically supplied exceptional circumstances. It nevertheless accepted that the nature of the need, limited alternatives and the sustainability consequences could together support release.
The inspector had considered the area’s tightly drawn Green Belt, alternative locations and the consequences of directing growth beyond its outer boundary. These were real components of the planning judgment, not simply repetitions of a housing target.
Read Compton for later clarification. That judgment expressly says that the Calverton considerations are neither exhaustive nor a checklist.
A staged review could not avoid the main issue
The court recognised a risk that exceptional circumstances might fall between the strategic and detailed stages. It found that this had not happened: the strategic justification had been decided, rather than merely postponed.
That does not establish that every staged plan process is adequate. The evidence and reasoning must show where the relevant decisions have actually been made.
The court also found that reasonable alternatives, including the consequences of avoiding Green Belt release, had been assessed. It did not dispense with the need for sustainability appraisal.
Keep the policy and decision-making context clear
Calverton applied the 2012 NPPF. Its paragraph numbers and policy wording are historical, and its subject was plan-making rather than an application for inappropriate development within the Green Belt.
The useful lesson is to identify and explain the relevant circumstances, rather than substitute either an automatic housing-need rule or a mechanical checklist for planning judgment.
Read the Calverton judgment
The complete judgment is available to Gold Members.
Calverton Case Law Page Updated: 12th September 2026