Smith & Anor v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor [2025] EWHC 888 (Admin) (10 April 2025)

Smith & Anor v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor [2025] EWHC 888 (Admin) (10 April 2025)

The Inspector's decision to refuse planning permission was lawful as she correctly applied the sequential and exception tests for flood risk, provided adequate reasoning, and properly considered the planning balance and human rights. None of the renewed grounds were arguable.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 888 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Stacey Jane Marie Smith; Claimant: Theresa Casey; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; Second Defendant: Crawley Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (statutory Review of Planning Decision) / Renewed Application for Permission
Outcome
Renewed application for permission refused on all grounds; matter to proceed on previously permitted grounds only.
Legal Topics
Statutory Review, Planning Permission, Gypsy and Traveller Sites, Flood Risk Assessment, Sequential Test, Exception Test, Temporary Planning Permission, Human Rights Considerations
Administrative Law Planning Law Human Rights Statutory Review Planning Permission Gypsy and Traveller Sites Flood Risk Assessment Sequential Test +3 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stacey Jane Marie Smith

Claimant

Theresa Casey

Claimant

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

First Defendant

Crawley Borough Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (statutory Review of Planning Decision) / Renewed Application for Permission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in concluding the development was unacceptable for the duration of a temporary permission without considering its duration
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to consider evidence that the exception test was met
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector's reasoning on flood risk for temporary occupation was unclear

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's decision to refuse planning permission was lawful as she correctly applied the sequential and exception tests for flood risk, provided adequate reasoning, and properly considered the planning balance and human rights. None of the renewed grounds were arguable.

Court Disposition

Renewed application for permission refused on all grounds; matter to proceed on previously permitted grounds only.

Orders

  • None of the renewed grounds are arguable; permission refused on grounds 2(a), 2(c), and 4.
  • Matter to proceed to substantive hearing on grounds previously permitted by Mr Justice Eyre.