Planning headline judgements over the summer

With peak holiday season coming to its end, we thought it would be a good time to re-cap on some of the key planning judgements handed down by the Courts in July and August.

Supreme Court

Re-defining ‘crematorium’: Wathen-Fayed v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2025] UKSC 32

The claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal to uphold the grant of planning permission for a crematorium in the green belt on the basis that it breached Section 5 of the Cremation Act 1902 as the grounds abutted the highway. Although the Supreme Court agreed with the claimant that the natural reading of the definition of a crematorium meant it extended to everything in the grounds, not just the cremation building, it chose to depart from this as it would result in a logical absurdity that would prevent access roads that formed part of crematoriums from meeting the public highway. It held that the reading of section 5 should be restricted to the building fitted with the appliances for burning human remains. This is an important reminder that Courts will consider logic when interpreting statutes.

Cumulative approach to qualified exemptions: Department for Business and Trade v Information Commissioner [2025] UKSC 2

The Supreme Court has clarified that where multiple qualified exemptions are engaged under the Freedom of Information Act, a cumulative approach should be taken. This means that public authorities should ensure that the public interest considerations in favour of non-disclosure under each exemption are identified, articulated and assessed collectively.

Court of Appeal

Material considerations following an inquiry: Keep Chiswell Green v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 958

This challenge concerned the question of whether the Secretary of State unlawfully failed to regard a material consideration which arose after the inquiry had closed but before the decision was made. The Court of Appeal held that, as the document in question was not so obviously material to the decision, the Secretary of State was not irrational to have not considered it. However, the Court then highlighted that circumstances could arise where it would be unlawful to fail to regard a material consideration arising after an inquiry.

Section 19 of the Environment Act 2021: R (Rights: Community: Action Limited) v SSHCLG [2025] EWCA Civ 990

This claim concerned the lawfulness of policy in a December 2023 Written Ministerial Statement that gave guidance to local planning authorities on energy efficiency policies setting criteria for circumstances where such policies should exceed standards in Building Regulations. The Minister who approved the final version of the policy was mistakenly not made aware of the duty in section 19 of the Environment Act 2021 to have “due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles”, which came into force on 1 November 2023. While there had been some earlier consideration of the Environmental Principles Policy Statement (“EPPS”), the Secretary of State undertook a subsequent EPPS assessment in February 2024. On the facts, the Court of Appeal held that the subsequent EPPS assessment was legally adequate and could not be characterised as merely ‘rearguard’ action. This is the first judgement to consider this duty.

Major Development in the Kent Downs National Landscape: R (Moakes) v Canterbury City Council and Mr Walters [2025] EWCA Civ 927

This case related to an application for major development in the Kent Downs National Landscape, comprising warehouses and a winery to be occupied by Chapel Down Wine. The Council refused to allow representatives of Natural England or CPRE Kent to speak at the committee meeting on behalf of those organisations. The Court of Appeal dismissed the challenge and held that whether prejudice arises from an inability to speak is a question of fact to be reviewed on appeal and that there is no heightened standard of reasoning required where the decision-maker departs from views of statutory consultees.

High Court

Local cultural policies: Holborn Studios Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors [2025] EWHC 1852 (Admin)

Planning consent for the re-development of Holborn Studios into a 50-home mixed-use scheme was successfully challenged in the High Court due to the “inadequate” reasoning of the planning inspector that the scheme allowed the ‘re-provision’ of the cultural facility in accordance with local cultural policies. As the office space within the scheme had not been designed as a cultural facility and there were no restrictions on its use for creative/cultural purposes, it could not be interpreted as providing the existing cultural facility, which was a photographic studio.

Irrationality: Protecting Our Park Ltd v Cheshire East Borough Council [2025] EWHC 1848 (Admin)

The High Court considered the lawfulness of a decision to grant planning permission for a care scheme and compliance with a planning policy which provided that residential development would be supported that released funds to enable the delivery of a proposed life science park.  There was no evidence about whether the planning committee had considered how the funds obtained would be used. The decision was considered irrational as it was uncertain whether the care scheme could enable the delivery of the park.

Deliverability of a scheme: R (Save Wimbledon Park Ltd) v Mayor of London [2025] EWHC 1856 (Admin)

A decision by the Mayor of London to grant permission to expand the Wimbledon Championship site onto a golf course, which was also a grade II registered park, was upheld by the High Court. The claimant argued that the Mayor failed to consider the deliverability of the development, due to the golf course being subject to a statutory trust and restrictive covenants requiring it to remain open and free. The High Court dismissed this, arguing that the existence of an obstacle did not mean that, in a case where the proposal met a need, deliverability was always material.

Approval of Plan for Abingdon Reservoir: R (on the application of Saferwaters Ltd) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2025] EWHC 1885 (Admin)

The High Court has dismissed a judicial review of the decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment to direct publication of the Water Resources Management Plans (“WRMP”) for Thames Water and Affinity Water, which demonstrates how the water undertakers will ensure security of supply for their customers over a 50 year planning period. The claimants objected to the inclusion of Abingdon Reservoir in the WRMPs, and alleged that the Secretary of State had erred in deciding to direct publication of the WRMPs without first holding a public inquiry. The High Court held that the claimants had a full opportunity to make representations in writing, which had been taken into account by the Environment Agency and the Secretary of State, and the circumstances did not require the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion to order a public inquiry.

Mortgagee exclusion clause: Westminster City Council v Gems House Residences Chiltern Street Ltd [2025] EWHC 1789

The High Court had to determine whether a mortgagee exclusion clause in a planning obligation applied at the time the mortgage was granted or at the time of sale. The mortgagee exclusion clause stated the affordable housing obligations would not be binding upon “any mortgagee of an RSP (registered social provider) or any receiver appointed by such mortgagee or any person deriving title through any such mortgagee or receiver”. The Court held that the mortgagee exclusion clause applied to protect the first defendant as a person deriving title through a mortgagee of an RSP, even though the RSP had been deregistered before the sale. This interpretation aligned with the purpose of the clause to facilitate registered providers raising sufficient funding to acquire affordable housing units.

Removal of permitted development rights: Singhal UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities & Anor [2025] EWHC 1967

The High Court allowed a legal challenge against a planning inspector’s decision to impose a planning condition removing permitted development rights at a property that was subject to enforcement action. The claimant had been substantially prejudiced because it had not been given an opportunity to make submissions on it. This serves as a useful reminder of the need for the appropriate level of consultation and the importance of taking into account representations made.

Contact us

These cases highlight the ‘grey’ nature of planning law – policies require careful interpretation, and decisions need to be determined robustly. Our team has extensive experience advising on consenting schemes and representing clients at appeal and in Court so please contact partners Alex Minhinick or Cathryn Tracey if you have any queries.