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 Upper Tribunal held that a reasonable planning authority would have required archaeological trial trenching for Curzon Street, which would have revealed the Roundhouse remains.
The Upper Tribunal allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal, held the flexible CAAD scheme inconsistent with the development plan, and substituted a revised mixed-use certificate.
The High Court dismissed a section 288 challenge to refusal of a wind farm in Wales, holding the inspector lawfully applied policy and rationally weighed National Park harm.
RWE Renewables UK Swindon Ltd v Welsh Ministers [2025] EWHC 3073 (Admin) (24 November 2025)
The High Court dismissed a statutory review of a planning refusal for a six-turbine wind project near Bannau Brycheiniog National Park, holding the inspector made no error of law.
Campaign for the Protection Of Rural England, Kent Branch, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary Of State For Housing Communities And Local Government [2025] EWHC 1781 (Admin) (20 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed a section 288 challenge to planning permission for 165 homes in the High Weald AONB, holding section 85(A1) does not require refusal for all harmful development.
The inspector's decision was lawful, rational, and adequately reasoned on all challenged grounds. No arguable error or misdirection was demonstrated regarding planning policy interpretation, trip generation, traffic regulation orders, cycling infrastructure policy, or Habitats Regulations Assessment. The costs decision findings were reasonable and within the inspector's jurisdiction.
Source excerpt
Ockham Parish Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors [2024] EWHC 3552 (Admin) (05 December 2024)
The High Court refused permission to challenge planning approval for Wisley Airfield, finding no arguable errors in access, cycling, habitats or costs reasoning.
The decision to grant planning permission was unlawful because the Officer’s Report failed to provide adequate and intelligible reasons on principal controversial issues, misinterpreted and misapplied key development plan policies (notably Policy 5 and Policy 23), failed to lawfully consider and address objectors’ evidence on need, viability, landscape and visual impact, ecology, and climate change, and imposed a planning condition (Condition 11) that did not secure the mitigation required for protected species. These errors were significant, went to the heart of the decision, and it could no…
Source excerpt
The Inspector erred in law by reducing the weight attached to biodiversity net gain on the mistaken basis that forthcoming legislative requirements would apply to the development, thereby exercising planning judgment on an incorrect legal basis. This error was material and the decision must be quashed.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a renewed application for statutory review of a planning inspector’s decision, rejecting challenges to policy interpretation, a planning condition, and hardship balancing.
Explore more
