Miles Connors v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor

Miles Connors v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor

The application for permission to appeal was not properly brought due to failure to comply with Practice Direction 54D; even if properly brought, the grounds of appeal lacked merit as the Inspector's decision was reasoned and consistent with planning policy.

Parties
Applicant: Miles Connors; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: Milton Keynes City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Planning Appeal Under Section 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice, Flood Risk, Biodiversity, Compliance With Practice Directions, Permission to Appeal
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Flood Risk Biodiversity Compliance With Practice Directions Permission to Appeal

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

Parties

Miles Connors

Applicant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

Milton Keynes City Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Planning Appeal Under Section 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for permission to appeal complied with Practice Direction 54D
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector erred in assessment of flood risk and application of sequential and exception tests
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector erred regarding hedgerow removal and biodiversity loss

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to appeal was not properly brought due to failure to comply with Practice Direction 54D; even if properly brought, the grounds of appeal lacked merit as the Inspector's decision was reasoned and consistent with planning policy.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused