Keep Chiswell Green v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors

Keep Chiswell Green v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors

The Arup Review was not 'so obviously material' to the Secretary of State's decision on the planning appeals that it was irrational not to take it into account; the procedural bar applied by the judge below was incorrect, but the appeal fails on the merits as the Arup Review was not a mandatory material consideration.

Parties
Appellant: Keep Chiswell Green; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: Cala Homes (Chiltern) Limited; Third Respondent: Headlands Way Limited; Fourth Respondent: St Albans City and District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Statutory Review of Planning Decision / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Material Considerations in Planning Appeals, Green Belt Policy, Statutory Review, Procedural Bars in Judicial Review
Administrative Law Planning Law Material Considerations in Planning Appeals Green Belt Policy Statutory Review Procedural Bars in Judicial Review

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

Parties

Keep Chiswell Green

Appellant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

Cala Homes (Chiltern) Limited

Second Respondent

Headlands Way Limited

Third Respondent

St Albans City and District Council

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Statutory Review of Planning Decision / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State unlawfully failed to have regard to a material consideration (the Arup Review) arising after the inquiry but before the decision
  2. 2 Whether a procedural bar prevented the appellant from raising new evidence not placed before the inspector or Secretary of State
  3. 3 Whether the Arup Review was 'so obviously material' as to be a mandatory material consideration

Ratio Decidendi

The Arup Review was not 'so obviously material' to the Secretary of State's decision on the planning appeals that it was irrational not to take it into account; the procedural bar applied by the judge below was incorrect, but the appeal fails on the merits as the Arup Review was not a mandatory material consideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the statutory review claim fails; no order for reopening the inquiry or reconsideration of the planning decision.