HOW important are precedents? In the planning world, things often happen because of what has happened elsewhere.

The North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in Hungerford is facing a proposal for 120 houses. This follows encroachments in other AONBs: 60 houses in the Cotswolds and 600 houses in Mid Sussex High Weald.

AONBs are strongly protected. Planning permission is only granted if there are “exceptional circumstances”. As the Times leader said, their beauty is irreplaceable. To those who visit them for leisure or who live and work in them they are a source of permanent wonder and enjoyment.

They are part of what makes the English landscape so special and so diverse, and they have great value for farming, forestry and tourism. So how did the encroachments come about?

An inspector for the Cotswold AONB appeal judged that the need to meet housing targets provided the necessary “exceptional circumstances” with which to override the protection of the AONB. He duly overruled the council’s decision to refuse permission on the grounds of housing land supply.

But should projections of anticipated housing targets really be classed as “exceptional circumstances”? This is problematic for various reasons as targets are based on estimates and assumptions, starting with the Office of Population Census and Surveys and ending up with Government projections.

Targets can be driven by market demand rather than actual local need.

Moreover, councils that cover AONBs or other protected areas are expected to have lower targets.

So were housing targets used as a battering ram to override other policies and allow speculative development in AONBs, potentially setting a precedent which presages their gradual destruction? The 600 houses in the Sussex AONB were granted after the council had considered the precedent set by the Cotswold case.

With up to 1.4 million opportunities for housing on brownfields it seems unnecessary to encroach on greenfields, especially protected landscape areas.

In a recent case in Marlborough, also in the North Wessex Downs AONB, it seems a precedent has been set that 106 agreements for contributions to the provision of affordable houses can be overturned. In this case, the sum amounted to more than £330,000 and included a small contribution to the Stone Curlew reserve.

Because of new Government guidelines, the Wiltshire Council Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning, Development Management, Strategic Housing, Operational Property and Waste, said “We have no alternative but to follow it. If we went against it they would appeal and we would have been awarded costs against us for wasting time. This is unfortunately out of our hands.”

This is deeply regrettable. Each case needs to be considered on its merits rather than slavishly following guidelines. Marlborough Town Council pointed out in vain that the adopted Core Strategy (which carries weight) gives importance to the provision of affordable housing in the town.

This is where democracy comes into play. Council elections are in May. There is also an opportunity for people to comment on the White Paper on Housing just published.

There are some key points we can make to our MPs, such as: give priority to brownfields and ensure they are taken up before applications for greenfields can be pursued. Define the five-year land supply clearly so that arguing about what it means is not left to the developers, leaving strapped-for-cash councils powerless. Ensure protection of special landscapes, AONBs and green belts. And for good measure, challenge the “viability” clause so developers can no longer argue that it is not viable to build affordable houses or contribute to building them.