Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Permission for a statutory planning review was refused. The court held the inspector’s decision on a gypsy/traveller site was a lawful planning judgment, not irrational.
Casey & Anor v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor [2025] EWHC 3138 (Admin) (28 November 2025)
The High Court quashed a planning inspector’s refusal of permission for a Gypsy/Traveller site after finding a material mistake about flood-zone siting and flawed safety reasoning.
The High Court quashed a planning inspector’s dismissal of a traveller-site appeal after finding a fundamental mistake about caravan siting and an inadequate flood-risk assessment.
The Inspector was entitled to conclude that a temporary planning permission would be unacceptable irrespective of its duration due to the constant and unpredictable nature of flood risk, and that the sequential test had not been satisfied, precluding consideration of the exception test. The Inspector's reasoning was clear, logical, and consistent with national and local policy, and human rights considerations were properly weighed in the planning balance.
Source excerpt
Smith & Anor v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor [2025] EWHC 888 (Admin) (10 April 2025)
The High Court refused renewed permission on planning-law grounds about flood risk, temporary permission, and the sequential and exception tests for a Gypsy Traveller site.
The statutory definition of 'crematorium' in section 2 of the Cremation Act 1902 does not extend to open areas such as memorial gardens; section 5 locational restrictions apply only to buildings or structures constructed for cremation purposes. The Inspector was entitled to conclude the proposed development would not contravene the Act. The Inspector correctly applied flood risk policies, considered alternative sites, and imposed appropriate conditions; no error of law or irrationality occurred.
Source excerpt
The relevant policies do not require an applicant for development consent to demonstrate that, wherever there is a risk of flooding from surface water, there are no other reasonably available sites with a lower risk. The manner in which surface water flood risk is taken into account is a matter of planning judgment. The Secretary of State was entitled to defer cumulative impact assessment of the Nautilus and Eurolink projects due to insufficient information. There was no public law error or irrationality in the decision-making process.
Source excerpt
Wathen-Fayed v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2024] EWCA Civ 507 (10 May 2024)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a challenge to planning permission for a Green Belt crematorium, holding it would not breach the Cremation Act 1902 and flood risk was properly assessed.
Mead Realisations Ltd v The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing And Communities & Anor [2024] EWHC 279 (Admin) (12 February 2024)
The High Court dismissed two planning challenges about flood-risk policy, holding that the sequential test in the NPPF and PPG was lawfully applied.
Substation Action Save East Suffolk Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 12 (17 January 2024)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a planning judicial review challenge to two offshore wind farm development consent orders, rejecting flood-risk and cumulative-effects grounds.
Explore more
