Compton: Green Belt release through a local plan
R (Compton Parish Council and others) v Guildford Borough Council [2019] EWHC 3242 (Admin) concerns the adoption of Guildford’s Local Plan and its removal of land from the Green Belt.
The court dismissed all three claims. Its explanation of exceptional circumstances is particularly useful because it warns against turning the earlier Calverton judgment into a mandatory checklist.
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
- [2019] EWHC 3242 (Admin)
- Court
- High Court, Planning Court
- Judgment date
- 4th December 2019
- Judge
- Sir Duncan Ouseley
- Case number
- CO/2173/2019; CO/2174/2019; CO/2175/2019
A combination of circumstances can be exceptional
The court rejected the suggestion that ordinary housing needs could never contribute to exceptional circumstances. The relevant circumstances were considered together, including need, constraints on other locations, Green Belt effects and the advantages of a coherent development strategy.
It was not necessary for each factor to be individually unusual or incapable of recurring elsewhere. Nor did the existence of need automatically settle the matter.
Paragraph 72 explains that the considerations discussed in Calverton were neither exhaustive nor a checklist. Other matters, including infrastructure and the overall distribution of development, could be important.
The housing buffer was part of the strategy
Updated projections reduced the assessed housing requirement to 10,678 homes, while the allocations could deliver 14,602. The claimants challenged the resulting headroom and the continued release of major Green Belt sites.
The court accepted the inspector’s reasoning about delivery risks, the need to maintain supply over time, affordability and the wider benefits of the strategic sites. There was no obligation to calculate a spuriously precise buffer first and then find sites matching it exactly.
This was a judgment about this plan and its evidence. It does not establish a universal percentage of additional Green Belt land which every council may release.
An earlier appeal refusal did not decide the plan allocation
A previous planning appeal concerning the former Wisley airfield had been dismissed. The court nevertheless upheld the plan inspector’s different conclusion on the larger allocation.
The tasks differed: the appeal tested a particular proposal against the existing framework, while the examination considered the soundness of a long-term strategy and changes to Green Belt boundaries.
The sites and infrastructure circumstances also differed. The earlier decision had to be considered, but it did not conclusively decide the allocation. The judgment distinguishes plan-making exceptional circumstances from the more demanding very special circumstances test applicable to the appeal being discussed.
Environmental assessment required its own analysis
The court rejected the argument that the reduced housing requirement automatically required a new sustainability appraisal. The objectives, allocations, significant effects and reasonable alternatives already assessed were central to that conclusion.
It also upheld the Habitats assessment. That conclusion did not rest merely on expected background improvements in air quality: the authority had assessed where exceedances would occur and their ecological significance for the SPA’s qualifying birds.
An exceedance of a critical pollution threshold did not, without that ecological assessment, conclusively establish the effect on site integrity. Conversely, an improving baseline was not by itself proof that the plan would have no adverse effect.
Read Compton in its historical policy context
The 2012 NPPF applied to the plan examined in this litigation. Its wording and paragraph numbers should not be reproduced as current national policy.
Compton is valuable for understanding the reasoning required in plan-making and the proper scope of a court challenge. It does not remove the need to apply the legislation and policies governing a later plan or application.
Read the Compton judgment
The complete judgment covering all three claims is available to Gold Members.
Compton Case Law Page Updated: 12th September 2026