Reinforces the Hunstan decision on why you cant relay on a revoked RSS vis-a-vis plan making.
When the report is read as a whole, far from full objectively assessed housing need being a driver in terms of the housing requirement target – as the NPPF requires – it is at best a back-seat passenger. Nowhere is the full housing need in fact objectively assessed. …
As the Inspector did not apply himself to the prior questions of whether there is any shortfall between that need and the provision made and, if there is, the amount of that shortfall, it is impossible to say whether or not there was any breach of the duty to cooperate.
On the challenge relating to reallocating white land to Green Belt
He performed an exercise of simply balancing the various current policy factors, and, using his planning judgement, concluding that it was unlikely that either of these two sites would, under current policies, likely to be found suitable for development. That, in his judgment, may now be so: but that falls very far short of the stringent test for exceptional circumstances that any revision of the Green Belt boundary must satisfy. There is nothing in this case that suggests that any of the assumptions upon which the Green Belt boundary was set has proved unfounded, nor has anything occurred since the Green Belt boundary was set that might justify the redefinition of the boundary.