With the peak holiday period, we thought it was a good time to tilt some of the most important planning judgments that were raised by the dishes in July and August.
Supreme Court
Recaluate 'CREMATORION': Wathen-capable against State Secretary for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2025] KSC 32
The applicant asked the decision of the Court of Appeal to maintain the granting of the building permit for a crematorium in the green belt by violating 1902 against section 5 of the 1902 cremation, since the reasons were based on the highway. Although the Supreme Court agreed that the natural reading of the definition of a crematorium led to it expanded to everything on the premises, not only on the cremation building, but he decided to deviate from the fact that this would lead to a logical absurdity that would prevent access roads that stopped on the public highway. It found that reading from Section 5 should be limited to the building, which is equipped with the devices to burn human remains. This is an important memory that courts are taken into account when interpreting statutes logic.
Cumulative approach to qualified exceptions: Department of Economic Affairs and Trade against Information Commissioner [2025] KSC 2
The Supreme Court has made it clear that if several qualified exceptions in accordance with the law on freedom of information are included, a cumulative approach should be chosen. This means that the authorities should ensure that the considerations of the public interest in favor of not letting them are identified, articulated and assessed together in the context of any exemption.
Court of Appeal
Material considerations from a request: Keep Chiswell Green against Foreign Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government and ORS [2025] EWCA CIV 958
This challenge concerned the question of whether the Foreign Minister had arisen an essential consideration that had arisen after the examination was completed. The Court of Appeal decided that the Foreign Minister, as the document in question was not so obviously materially, was not irrational to not consider it. However, the court raised that the circumstances could occur where it would be illegal, a significant consideration that arises after an examination could not be taken into account.
Section 19 of the Environmental Act 2021: R (right: Community: Action Limited) V SSHCLG [2025] EWCA CIV 990
This assertion concerned the legality of politics in a written declaration by the written minister in December 2023, in which the local planning authorities for energy efficiency guidelines were determined for circumstances in which such guidelines should exceed the standards in the construction of regulations. The minister, who approved the final version of the directive, was incorrectly not made aware of the obligation in Section 19 of the Environmental Act 2021 to “take into account the political statement on environmental principles”, which came into force on November 1, 2023. While an earlier consideration of the environmental principles (“EPPS”). The subsequent EPPS assessment was legally appropriate and could not be characterized as a “reconter” file. This is the first judgment that takes into account this obligation.
Main development in the national landscape of Kent Downs: R (Moakes) against Canterbury City Councilor and Mr. Walters [2025] EWCA CIV 927
This case related to an application for important development in the national landscape of Kent Downs, consisting of camp and a winery occupied by Chapel Down Wine. The Council refused to speak to representatives of Natural England or CPre Kent at the meeting of the committee on behalf of these organizations. The Court of Appeal dismissed the contestation and found that, whether prejudices are to be spoken of the inability, a factual question that must be checked in appeal and that no increased standard of argument is necessary if the decision -makers refer to the statements of the statutory advisors.
High court
Local cultural policy: Holborn Studios LTD against Foreign Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors [2025] EWHC 1852 (admin)
The planning of the planning for the transformation of Holborn studios into a 50-home mixing system was successfully questioned before the High Court. Since the office space within the program was not designed as a cultural institution and there were no restrictions on its use for creative/cultural purposes, it could not be interpreted as a provision of the existing cultural institution that was a photographic studio.
Irrationality: Protection of our park LTD against Cheshire East Borough Council [2025] EWHC 1848 (admin)
The High Court took into account the legality of a decision to issue the building permit for a nursing program, and compliance with a planning guideline, which provided that residential buildings would be supported, published the funds to provide the provision of a proposed life science park. There was no evidence of whether the planning committee had considered how the funds obtained would be used. The decision was considered irrational because it was uncertain whether the nursing program could enable the park to be delivered.
Availability of a scheme: R (Save Wimbledon Park Ltd) against Mayor of London [2025] EWHC 1856 (admin)
A decision by the Mayor of London to grant permission to expand the Wimbledon championship location to a golf course, which was also a registered park of class II, was confirmed by the High Court. The applicant argued that the mayor had not taken into account the availability of the development, since the golf course has a legal trust and restrictive that demands to remain open and free. The High Court dismissed this and argued that the existence of an obstacle did not mean that in a case in which the proposal fulfilled a need was always material.
Approval of the plan for Abingdon Reservoir: R (for the application of Saferswaters LTD) against Foreign Minister for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2025] EWHC 1885 (admin)
The High Court dismissed a judicial review of the decision of the Foreign Minister for the Environment in order to direct the publication of the plans for water resource management (“WRMP”) for Thames Water and Affinity Water, which shows how the water representatives ensure the security of supply security for their customers over a period of 50 years. The applicants rejected the admission of the Abingdon Reservoir to the WRMPs and claimed that the Foreign Minister had wrongly decided to lead the publication of the WRMPs without first carrying out a public investigation. The High Court decided that the applicants had the full opportunity to admit in writing that had been taken into account by the environmental authority and the Foreign Minister, and the circumstances did not require the foreign minister to carry out his discretion in order to order a public investigation.
Mortgage exclusion clause: Westminster city council against gemstones House Residences Chiltern Street Ltd. [2025] EWHC 1789
The High Court had to determine whether a mortgage exclusion clause was used in a planning obligation at the time of the mortgage or at the time of the sale. In the mortgages exclusion clause, it was found that the affordable housing obligations for “a mortgageer of an RSP (registered social provider) or a recipient or a person appointed by this mortgage or a person who was used via such a mortgage or recipient decided that the legal courtyard was applied to the first defendant than one Personal to protect the title via an RSP mortgage, although the RSP had been deregistered before the sale.
Distance of the permissible development rights: Singhal UK Ltd against Foreign Minister for the admission of living space and communities & Anor [2025] EWHC 1967
The High Court left a legal contestation against the decision of a planning inspector to impose a planning condition in which the permissible development rights were removed in a property that is subject to the enforcement measures. The applicant had essentially been biased because there was no opportunity to get there. This serves as a useful memory of the need for the appropriate level of consultation and the importance of considering representations.
Contact us
These cases underline the “gray” nature of the planning law – guidelines require careful interpretation, and decisions must be stated robust. Our team has extensive experience in consulting consent programs and representing customers in an appointment and in court. Please please contact partner Alex Minhinick or Cathryn Tracey If you have any questions.