Crest Nicholson Operations Limited v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor

Crest Nicholson Operations Limited v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Inspector and Secretary of State did not err in law or act irrationally in imposing Condition 6. The evidence base was incomplete and uncertain, and there was no reasonable scientific certainty that the proposal would not adversely affect the integrity of the Arun Valley Sites without the condition. Reliance on other regulatory regimes was not sufficient to meet the high threshold required by the Habitats Regulations. The decision was a lawful exercise of planning judgment and complied with the precautionary principle.

Parties
Claimant: Crest Nicholson Operations Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Horsham District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Planning Statutory Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Habitats Regulations Assessment, Water Neutrality, Appropriate Assessment, Judicial Review, Planning Conditions, Water Abstraction, Environmental Impact Assessment
Planning Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Habitats Regulations Assessment Water Neutrality Appropriate Assessment Judicial Review Planning Conditions +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crest Nicholson Operations Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Horsham District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Planning Statutory Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the imposition of Condition 6 (water neutrality) was lawful under the Habitats Regulations
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector and Secretary of State erred in law or acted irrationally regarding the application of imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI)
  3. 3 Whether the approach to uncertainty in the appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations was correct

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector and Secretary of State did not err in law or act irrationally in imposing Condition 6. The evidence base was incomplete and uncertain, and there was no reasonable scientific certainty that the proposal would not adversely affect the integrity of the Arun Valley Sites without the condition. Reliance on other regulatory regimes was not sufficient to meet the high threshold required by the Habitats Regulations. The decision was a lawful exercise of planning judgment and complied with the precautionary principle.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim for statutory review is dismissed.