WWFC Application Information Hub
Planning application PL/26/07779/FA

3. Green Belt and Very Special Circumstances

The most important balancing exercise

​

The proposed Performance Hub is in the Green Belt.

​

That does not mean development is impossible. But where development is inappropriate development, national planning policy deliberately sets a high hurdle.

​

The current National Planning Policy Framework says:

​

“Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.”

​

It then explains when those circumstances exist:

​

“Such circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm resulting from the proposed development, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.”

​

And it adds another important instruction:

​

“Substantial weight should be given to the harm to the Green Belt which would be caused, including harm to its openness.”

​

What does “clearly outweighs” mean?

This is not an ordinary balancing exercise in which a marginal advantage on one side is enough.

​

The policy starts by requiring that substantial weight be given to Green Belt harm. Any other identified harm is then added to that side of the balance.

​

The considerations relied upon in favour of the development must do more than merely equal that harm, or just tip the balance.

​

They must clearly outweigh it.

​

So this is not:

51 benefit : 49 harm = permission

It is closer in principle to:

the benefits must be sufficiently powerful that the balance is clearly in their favour despite substantial weight already being given to Green Belt harm.

​

There is no mathematical percentage or numerical threshold. The decision is a matter of planning judgment. But the wording is deliberately stronger than simply “outweigh”.

​

How long will the claimed benefits last?

The harm caused by permanent development in the Green Belt is long-term.

The same should therefore be asked of the benefits relied upon to justify it:

Will those benefits still exist in 10, 25 or 50 years?

That matters because not all planning benefits have the same degree of permanence.

Some are inherent in the development itself. If a renewable-energy scheme produces electricity, for example, that benefit exists because the development exists.

​

Many of the benefits claimed here are different.

​

A building can remain while:

• community-use hours are reduced;

• programmes change or cease;

• charges rise;

• access arrangements change;

• golf provision deteriorates;

• maintenance standards fall;

• facilities become obsolete or derelict;

• the operator's priorities change.

​

The existence of the development therefore does not, by itself, guarantee the continued existence of the benefit.

​

Promise, condition or obligation?

That distinction affects how much weight a claimed benefit should receive.

​

A planning condition has to be sufficiently precise and enforceable. Planning obligations under section 106 are legally binding and run with the land, but can only be relied upon where the statutory tests are met.

​

So when substantial weight is sought for a claimed community benefit, the Council should ask:

Exactly what is secured, for how long, to what minimum standard, and what happens if it is not delivered?

​

An aspiration in a planning statement is not equivalent to a binding obligation.

Nor is a promise to provide community use at unspecified times equivalent to guaranteed provision over the lifetime of the development.

​

The time imbalance matters

This is particularly important in the Green Belt balance.

National policy requires substantial weight to be given to Green Belt harm and recognises the importance of openness and permanence.

​

If the harm is effectively permanent, but a claimed compensating benefit depends upon discretionary programming, future funding or the continuing enthusiasm of a particular operator, the two should not automatically receive equivalent weight.

The more uncertain or temporary the benefit, the less confidently it can carry the burden placed upon it in the VSC balance.

​

This site itself demonstrates why longevity cannot simply be assumed. Sporting and recreational facilities can deteriorate, close or become derelict over periods much shorter than the lifetime of major built development.

​

A permanent development should not be justified by temporary or unsecured benefits.

​

What goes on each side?

The exercise can be pictured very simply.

HARM

• harm arising merely because the development is inappropriate in the Green Belt;

• harm to openness;

• landscape or visual harm;

• loss or alteration of recreation;

• ecological harm;

• traffic, noise, lighting or access harm;

• any other harm identified through the application.

​

against:

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

• claimed improvements to golf;

• benefits at Farnham Park;

• benefits arising from the Performance Hub itself;

• community use;

• investment;

• economic, sporting or other public benefits relied upon by the Applicant.

​

Only if the second side clearly outweighs the first can Very Special Circumstances exist.​​