Save the Fox and Hounds Campaign Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors

Save the Fox and Hounds Campaign Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors

There was no legal or policy basis requiring the Inspector to provide reasons for maintaining the written representations procedure, and the Inspector did not fail to consider material evidence regarding viability; thus, the claim fails on both grounds.

Parties
Claimant: Save The Fox and Hounds Campaign Ltd; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Stratford on Avon District Council; Third Defendants: Stephen Charles Allely and Jackie Harding
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Statutory Review Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Review, Planning Appeals, Procedural Fairness, Duty to Give Reasons, Heritage Assets, Viability Assessments
Administrative Law Planning Law Statutory Review Planning Appeals Procedural Fairness Duty to Give Reasons Heritage Assets Viability Assessments

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Save The Fox and Hounds Campaign Ltd

Claimant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Stratford on Avon District Council

Second Defendant

Stephen Charles Allely and Jackie Harding

Third Defendants

Procedural Posture

Statutory Review Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in proceeding by written representations rather than a hearing or inquiry
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to consider material considerations, specifically offers to purchase the pub as a going concern

Ratio Decidendi

There was no legal or policy basis requiring the Inspector to provide reasons for maintaining the written representations procedure, and the Inspector did not fail to consider material evidence regarding viability; thus, the claim fails on both grounds.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed