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
The Council did not misinterpret or misapply Policy SADM5, properly applied the sequential test, correctly assessed highways impact, and was not legally obliged to consider the intended occupier in the sequential test; all grounds are unarguable and permission is refused.
Source excerpt
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.
Tesco Stores Ltd, R (on the application of) v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council [2025] EWHC 2547 (Admin) (02 October 2025)
The High Court refused Tesco’s renewed application for judicial review of planning permission allowing food retail use at an out-of-centre unit in Hatfield.
The council did not misinterpret or misapply the sequential test in paragraph 87 of the NPPF. The determination that alternative sites were not 'available' was a lawful exercise of planning judgment based on the facts at the time of decision, and did not depend on the identity of the applicant or intended operator. The appeal was dismissed as there was no error of law in the council's or the High Court's approach.
Source excerpt
Tesco Stores Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Lidl Great Britain Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 610 (09 May 2025)
The Court of Appeal dismissed Tesco’s challenge to planning permission for a Lidl store, holding the council lawfully applied the NPPF sequential test.
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 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) did not amend or override the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) policy but clarified and elucidated its meaning. The inspector lawfully applied the sequential test as clarified by the PPG, and properly assessed the proposal's conflict with both national and local policy. There is no legal principle preventing the Secretary of State from adopting guidance in the PPG that clarifies or amends the NPPF. The appeal is dismissed as no public law error occurred.
Source excerpt
Mead Realisations Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 32 (30 January 2025)
The Court of Appeal upheld dismissal of a planning statutory review, holding that PPG guidance on the flood-risk sequential test lawfully clarified the NPPF.
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 court held that the Inspectors correctly interpreted and applied the sequential test for flood risk under the NPPF and PPG. The PPG is a legitimate elucidation of the NPPF and may clarify its meaning. The sequential test is broad and allows for judgment and flexibility; it is not confined to the specific requirements of the developer's proposal. General need for development is not relevant to the sequential test but may be considered in the overall planning balance. The Inspectors did not err in law or fetter their discretion by treating the PPG as binding. The challenges were dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
