Giles & Ors v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor [2026] EWHC 1062 (Admin) (06 May 2026)

Giles & Ors v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor [2026] EWHC 1062 (Admin) (06 May 2026)

The claimants' challenges to the written representations procedure and the Inspector's refusal to impose a condition regarding visibility splays fail because such procedural challenges must be brought by judicial review at the time of decision, not via statutory review; the Inspector's approach was rational, based on the evidence, and did not breach Articles 6 or 8 ECHR or the Public Sector Equality Duty. There was no unfairness or irrationality in the procedure or the substantive planning decision.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 1062 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Ruben Giles; Claimant/appellant: Henry Loveridge; Claimant/appellant: Miles Maughan; Claimant/appellant: John Norris; Claimant/appellant: Georgina Wilson; Claimant/appellant: Beryl Lee; Claimant/appellant: Jimmy Evans; Claimant/appellant: Nathan Smith; Claimant/appellant: Brian Roberts; Claimant/appellant: Joe Smith; Claimant/appellant: Cash Loveridge; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Defendant/respondent: Tewkesbury Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Statutory Review and Appeal Under Sections 288 and 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment on Claim and Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Claim and application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Review Under TCPA 1990 S.288, Statutory Appeal Under TCPA 1990 S.289, Planning Enforcement Notice, Gypsy/traveller Site Planning, Green Belt Development, Highway Safety, Procedural Fairness, Equality Act 2010 Public Sector Equality Duty, ECHR Article 6 and 8 Rights
Planning Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Statutory Review Under TCPA 1990 S.288 Statutory Appeal Under TCPA 1990 S.289 Planning Enforcement Notice Gypsy/traveller Site Planning Green Belt Development +4 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ruben Giles

Claimant/appellant

Henry Loveridge

Claimant/appellant

Miles Maughan

Claimant/appellant

John Norris

Claimant/appellant

Georgina Wilson

Claimant/appellant

Beryl Lee

Claimant/appellant

Jimmy Evans

Claimant/appellant

Nathan Smith

Claimant/appellant

Brian Roberts

Claimant/appellant

Joe Smith

Claimant/appellant

Cash Loveridge

Claimant/appellant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

Defendant/respondent

Tewkesbury Borough Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Statutory Review and Appeal Under Sections 288 and 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment on Claim and Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision to determine the appeals by written representations rather than public inquiry was unlawful
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector's refusal to impose a condition regarding visibility splays was unlawful
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector breached Articles 6 and 8 ECHR and the Public Sector Equality Duty

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' challenges to the written representations procedure and the Inspector's refusal to impose a condition regarding visibility splays fail because such procedural challenges must be brought by judicial review at the time of decision, not via statutory review; the Inspector's approach was rational, based on the evidence, and did not breach Articles 6 or 8 ECHR or the Public Sector Equality Duty. There was no unfairness or irrationality in the procedure or the substantive planning decision.

Court Disposition

Claim and application for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Applications under sections 288 and 289 TCPA 1990 dismissed
  • Claimants to provide submissions on costs by 5 May 2026; respondents to reply by 6 May 2026