Samuel David Launchbury v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors

Samuel David Launchbury v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors

The inspector's decision was a lawful exercise of planning judgment, adequately reasoned, and not irrational. The claimant's challenge amounted to a merits-based disagreement, not a demonstration of legal error. The application for permission to bring a statutory review is refused.

Parties
Claimant: Samuel David Launchbury; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Charmaine Davies; Third Defendant: Wychavon District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Statutory Review (planning) / Renewed Oral Application for Permission to Bring Statutory Review
Outcome
Permission to bring statutory review refused
Legal Topics
Statutory Review Under Section 288 TCPA 1990, Planning Permission for Gypsy/traveller Sites, Biodiversity Net Gain, Landscape Impact Assessment, Flood Risk Assessment, Judicial Review Standards
Planning Law Administrative Law Statutory Review Under Section 288 TCPA 1990 Planning Permission for Gypsy/traveller Sites Biodiversity Net Gain Landscape Impact Assessment Flood Risk Assessment Judicial Review Standards

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel David Launchbury

Claimant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Charmaine Davies

Second Defendant

Wychavon District Council

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Review (planning) / Renewed Oral Application for Permission to Bring Statutory Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector's decision was irrational or inadequately reasoned in relation to landscape, flooding, and biodiversity net gain
  2. 2 Whether the inspector erred in law by granting permission contrary to local and national policy
  3. 3 Whether the inspector failed to provide adequate reasons for her conclusions

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector's decision was a lawful exercise of planning judgment, adequately reasoned, and not irrational. The claimant's challenge amounted to a merits-based disagreement, not a demonstration of legal error. The application for permission to bring a statutory review is refused.

Court Disposition

Permission to bring statutory review refused

Orders

  • Renewed application for permission refused
  • Costs order made by Deputy High Court Judge on 28 November 2025 upheld