Featured documents
R (Greyhound Board of Great Britain Ltd) v Welsh Ministers [2026] EWHC 670 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling reinforces the constitutional divide between the courts and the legislature. It explains that the scheme and framework of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GWA 2006) embody that separation of powers, and that any judicial attempt to recognise and enforce a common law obligation on Welsh Ministers to consult prior to introducing legislation in the Senedd would trespass upon that boundary. This is not a departure from established principle; case law has already upheld comparable rules for lawmakers in Scotland and at Westminster. However, this is the first express confirmation of the position for Welsh lawmakers, and the first time this dimension of the GWA 2006 has been analysed in such depth. The court examined earlier
The solution arrived through the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), a quasi‑judicial body handling mass claims, created under UN Security Council Resolution 687. By addressing environmental harm—most notably via its ‘F4’ claim class—the UNCC set a seminal benchmark shaping how international law and contemporary arbitral panels allocate financial responsibility for wartime ecological devastation. With present-day wars in areas such as Eastern Europe and the Middle East bringing dam breaches, strikes on chemical facilities, and the burning of farmland, the UNCC’s legacy endures as an essential reference point for states, global investors, and companies engaged in post‑conflict arbitration. The F4 claims: Quantifying the unquantifiable Prior to the 1990s, mechanisms in international law for war reparations overwhelmingly favoured property loss, foregone earnings, and bodily injury. The natural world was commonly treated as a mute, non-compensable victim of armed hostilities...
Understanding the farming business as a business Many farms still use long-standing structures that arose by habit, not strategy. Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common. While once effective, such setups can cause major issues around succession, tax planning and involving the next generation. A corporate team can take a fresh, business-led view of the farm, asking: Who owns the land and other critical assets? Who manages daily operations? Who carries the risk and who enjoys the return? What is the enduring plan for succession? From this review, the team can confirm whether the current setup is fit for purpose or if an alternative — for example an updated partnership agreement, a company, a limited liability partnership, or a blended model — would better meet the family’s aims. Tax efficiency through joined-up advice Tax sits at the centre of most
Most recent News
In this issue Budget DESNZ releases response on EV charging infrastructure and planning Planning applications and decisions Planning policy Nationally significant infrastructure projects Buildings and Building Regulations Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Related Documents Budget Budget 2025—key planning announcements The Autumn Budget 2025, presented on 26 November 2025, reiterates the government’s mission to ‘rebuild Britain’, clearly prioritising significantly higher housing output, faster planning reform and sustained economic expansion. Core pledges cover the delivery of 1.5 million homes in England funded through major programmes including the £39bn Social and Affordable Homes Programme, the £16bn National Housing Bank and fresh devolved housing pots, together with detailed proposals for at least three new towns at Tempsford, Leeds South Bank and Crews Hill & Chase Park. The upcoming Planning and...
In this issue: Planning applications and decisions Planning conditions, obligations and CIL Nationally significant infrastructure projects Buildings and building regulations Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Related Documents Planning applications and decisions Consultation on reform to the planning statutory consultee system The government has opened a consultation on changes to England’s statutory consultee regime. It suggests removing Sport England, the Gardens Trust and the Theatres Trust from the statutory consultee list; adjusting or sharpening consultation thresholds for key national bodies, widening use of standing advice, and introducing a new performance framework with a possible funding surcharge. The goal is to make consultee input more proportionate, prompt and focused on enabling sustainable development, while keeping suitable safeguards. See News Analysis: Consultation on reform to the planning statutory consultee system. Policy to fast-track...
On 18 November 2025, the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government opened a consultation to reshape England’s statutory consultee system, closing on 13 January 2026. It sets out a major reset of how consultees interact with planning. The reforms point to quicker, more proportionate and growth-orientated decisions, while placing greater emphasis on early, targeted engagement, robust in-house processes and awareness of updated referral routes. What is the background to the proposals? The government considers the current statutory consultee arrangements to be ineffective. Consultees are often said to reply too slowly, to revisit matters already resolved at plan-making, and to press for outcomes beyond what is necessary to make development acceptable in planning terms. The changes therefore seek a system that is more proportionate, timely and focused on enabling sustainable development. The consultation forms part of a broader planning reform agenda to empower local...
Mr Stephen Luck v Bracknell Forest Borough Council [2025] EWHC 2984 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling confirms that a disqualifying event for self-build relief can occur at any stage up to the end of the three-year clawback window, including prior to completion. A sale that brings the self-build intention to an end is a disqualifying event under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, SI 2010/948, reg 54D(2)(a), with the result that the relief is lost and the full CIL becomes due. Accordingly, developers and self-builders should manage CIL actively when schemes evolve or land is disposed of: use the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, SI 2010/948, reg 32 to transfer liability; and rely on the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, SI 2010/948, reg 74B to obtain abatement before the new permission is...
Haytop Country Park Ltd v Amber Valley Borough Council [2025] EWCA Civ 1442 What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling underlines that site licensing is to be undertaken on the basis that it dovetails with the planning system. Licence conditions cannot expand, override, or undermine the limits of extant planning permissions, nor the results of planning enforcement; together, these create the ‘planning baseline’ which the licensing authority is both entitled and obliged to factor in. Where an enforcement notice has conclusively found that operational works (for example, hardstandings or terraces) are unlawful and must be taken up, a site licence ought not to sanction plots reliant upon, or effectively reinstating, those works. An operator wishing to move away from the planning baseline must pursue a new application under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ( TCPA 1990), rather than seeking to rely on...
In this issue: Planning enforcement Planning applications and decisions Waste planning Planning for nationally significant infrastructure Planning appeals Heritage and natural environment Planning policy Marine planning Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content New Q& As Related Documents Planning enforcement Essex hotel can continue housing asylum seekers as High Court rules injunction not justified ( Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels) In Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Ltd [2025] EWHC 2937 ( KB), the High Court declined to issue a final injunction to stop the Bell Hotel being used to accommodate asylum seekers, deciding that reliance on section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ( TCPA 1990) would not be fair or proportionate. While the authority could sensibly allege a breach of planning control, the judge...
Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Ltd and others [2025] EWHC 2937 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? The decision confirms that an injunction under TCPA 1990, s 187B is a rare, last-ditch measure, to be used only where standard enforcement would fail or be disproportionate. Local planning authorities must show that routine tools—such as an enforcement notice, stop notice, or a certificate of lawfulness—were properly explored and found wanting. Even where a breach of planning control is acknowledged, the High Court may withhold relief if powerful public interest considerations exist, for example the Home Secretary’s statutory obligation to house asylum seekers under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The judgment underscores the mounting friction between local planning oversight and national emergency accommodation policy. LPAs should keep thorough, contemporaneous records justifying why urgent injunctive relief is...
In this issue: Heritage and natural environment Enforcement Planning policy Planning appeals Planning applications and decisions Buildings and Building Regulations Lex Talk®Planning: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Related Documents Heritage and natural environment Court of Appeal clarifies liability and sentencing for serious breaches of TPOs ( R v Chamdal) In R v Chamdal [2025] EWHC 2809 ( KB), the Court of Appeal ruled that for contraventions of section 210 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ( TCPA 1990), courts can levy deterrent, means‑assessed fines, treating the offence as one of strict liability with at least negligent culpability where owners do not check tree preservation order ( TPO) coverage and obtain consent. The court upheld a £200,000 sanction for causing or permitting the felling of at least 132 trees as...
R v Chamdal [2025] EWHC 2809 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Appeal affirmed that breaches of TCPA 1990, s 210 are offences of strict liability, placing primary responsibility on landowners—even those who have merely exchanged contracts—to ensure compliance. Depending on contractors will not lessen blameworthiness where substantial works are undertaken without checking TPO status and securing written approval. With no bespoke sentencing guideline, courts will apply the General Guideline: Overarching Principles alongside the Sentencing Act 2020, with a strong emphasis on deterrence and the offender’s means. Significant financial penalties are therefore probable, even in the absence of any demonstrated financial motive. The court adopted a broad concept of ‘harm,’ taking into account the number, age and value of the trees, the extent of the affected area, and impacts on amenity, biodiversity and carbon storage. Prior...
Turner v Secretary of State for Housing and Communities and Local Government and another [2025] EWHC 2815 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? For sites with several occupiers, the judgment confirms that—save for unusual situations—‘premises’ in TCPA 1990, s 329(2) should generally be understood as the whole planning unit/land referenced in the enforcement notice. In effect, an LPA may validly serve all occupiers by affixing the notice conspicuously at the site’s principal entrance (notably where there is only one access), instead of attaching separate copies within each occupier’s compound. This accords with the established ‘planning unit’ reasoning in Gregory & Rawlins and reflects inspectorate practice that internal compounds do not become distinct ‘premises’ for service. LPAs should document conspicuous display (photos; evidence of the site layout and access points) and consider additional fixings where there are multiple entrances or concerns about...
Wealden District Council v Devall and another [2025] EWHC 2809 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? For local planning authorities, this ruling still emphasises the potency of TCPA 1990, s 187B for swift, pinpointed action where operational development is underway (or imminent) in sensitive areas and there is a genuine prospect of rapid residential occupation. The court confirmed that the s 187B jurisdiction is original and discretionary, aimed at restraining contraventions where this is necessary and proportionate—therefore precise, contemporaneous proof of breach, planning harm and urgency are critical. Rebuilding that changes a structure’s external appearance constitutes “development” under TCPA 1990, s 55, and the laying of hardstanding may amount to an engineering/operational operation; both usually require permission unless permitted development applies—points best supported by dated photographs and officers’ notes. For developers and landowners, the takeaway is...
In this issue: Planning conditions, obligations and CIL Planning for nationally significant infrastructure Planning policy Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Related Documents Planning conditions, obligations and CIL Planning conditions, obligations and CIL Government and Mayor unveil temporary London housing support package with 50% CIL cut and relaxed design rules On 23 October 2025, the government and the Mayor of London released ‘ Homes for London: A package of support for housebuilding in the capital’. The agreement brings in time-limited 50% reductions to borough-level community infrastructure levy ( CIL), a fresh fast-track pathway for projects with 20% affordable homes, and looser London Plan design benchmarks—each intended to re-energise halted residential output across the city. The bundle blends fiscal support, policy latitude and additional mayoral powers—each crafted to make it simpler to kick-start...
Save Greater Manchester Green Belt Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and others [2025] EWHC 2742 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? For plan-makers, the court emphasises that identifying ‘exceptional circumstances’ to amend Green Belt boundaries is a wide policy notion entrusted to planning judgment; it is not limited to a ‘fundamental change’ or to smoothing out ‘boundary anomalies’. Inspectors and LPAs may lawfully set criteria to structure that judgment, but those criteria cannot be treated as inflexible legal preconditions: decision-makers must still balance all pertinent Green Belt considerations and set out why the evidence ‘fully evidences and justifies’ alteration. In practice, authorities promoting Green Belt extensions or releases may draw on a combination of site-specific factors—provided the examination record demonstrates the broader policy balance has been undertaken and not unduly narrowed. Objectors and...
What is the background to the proposals? London’s housing delivery has dropped markedly, owing to higher interest rates, surging build costs, and regulatory obstacles. The joint package seeks to unlock stalled projects and rebuild confidence in the development pipeline. It offers a time-limited uplift to viability by reducing fixed costs and easing inflexible design requirements, while protecting affordable housing provision. It also signals a wider national move towards clearer, more consistent planning rules with less duplication between borough and strategic policy tiers. What are the key proposals? The package combines financial relief, policy flexibility and additional powers for the Mayor—each intended to make it easier to bring schemes forward. CIL relief: The headline step is a temporary 50% reduction in borough-level CIL for eligible brownfield housing schemes that include at least 20% affordable housing. The reduction would not apply to Mayoral CIL, nor to student or...
In this issue: Planning conditions Planning applications and decisions Planning for nationally significant infrastructure Heritage and natural environment Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Related Documents Planning conditions Supreme Court rules that national planning policy cannot displace rights granted by outline planning permission. In C G Fry & Son Limited v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2025] UKSC 35, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal in part, confirming that regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, SI 2017/1012 (the Habitats Regulations), extends to subsequent stages of the planning process, including the discharge of conditions. However, the Court allowed the appeal on the distinct issue that national planning policy cannot cut across rights already bestowed by an outline planning permission......
Supreme Court holds national planning policy cannot override rights conferred by outline planning permission ( C G Fry & Son Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government) C G Fry & Son Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2025] UKSC 35 Background The appellant, C G Fry & Son Ltd, is a property developer. In December 2015, Somerset West and Taunton Council granted outline planning permission for a major residential scheme at Jurston Farm, near Wellington, within the River Tone catchment. The River Tone ultimately drains into the Somerset Levels, parts of which are designated as a Ramsar site. Although Ramsar sites do not fall under the Habitats Regulations, which give domestic effect to Directive 92/43/ EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (the EU Habitats Directive), national planning policy...
R (on the application of Friends of the Lake District) v Lake District National Park Authority [2025] EWHC 2630 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment confirms that section 11A(1A) of the 1949 Act (the Sandford principle) requires conservation to carry greater weight, but it is not an automatic veto when aims are in tension. Committees may lawfully find that public access and interpretation enrich cultural heritage while still according more weight to conservation, provided they explain the overall balance. Courts will not forensically dissect isolated comments from committee debates if the report and discussion show the principle was properly understood and applied. An attempt to cast Sandford as “conservation must always prevail” was rejected, so authorities should continue to record a clear, reasoned weighting exercise rather than treat Sandford as determinative in every instance. On conditions and evidence, the court...
In this issue: Planning and Infrastructure Bill Marine planning Planning policy Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Related Documents Planning and Infrastructure Bill Planning and Infrastructure Bill: government ‘pro-growth’ amendments moving to Lords report stage. The government has set out a bundle of amendments to its Planning and Infrastructure Bill, to be scrutinised at report stage in the House of Lords from 20 October 2025. Framed as part of its ‘pro-growth’ push to speed up delivery of homes and infrastructure, the package introduces a fresh power for ministers to issue ‘holding directions’, preventing councils from refusing applications while a call-in is being considered. It also proposes safeguards to stop permissions expiring during judicial review, together with steps to streamline approvals for major projects. See: LNB News 14/10/2025 41. Marine planning Defra publishes response to consultation on Marine Recovery Fund. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ( Defra) has...
In this issue When planning permission is required Planning enforcement Obtaining, amending and implementing planning permission Nationally significant infrastructure projects Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Related Documents When planning permission is required Court clarifies scope of section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and resolving ambiguity in prior approvals ( Dharmeshkumar v SSLUHC) In Dharmeshkumar v SSLUHC, the High Court found that substantial refurbishment amounted to “development” for the purposes of section 55 of the TCPA 1990, as it materially altered the building’s outward appearance and therefore required express consent. The court also confirmed that any uncertainty within prior approvals can be resolved by referring to the application paperwork and drawings, ensuring compliant aspects remain authorised while only non-compliant works face enforcement. See News Analysis: Court clarifies scope of section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and resolving ambiguity in prior...
Somani Hotels Ltd v Epping Forest District Council ( Secretary of State for the Home Department, intervening) [2025] EWCA Civ 1134 What are the practical implications of this case? Going forward, in matters of this sort, the High Court is apt to permit the Home Office to be added as a party even when the request is made very late in the process. The latitude for awarding injunctions of this kind on an interim footing—before the issues have been fully aired and determined at trial—is now limited. This follows the Court of Appeal’s clarification that: an interim injunction is aimed at preserving the lawful status quo pending trial. In a situation like this, where there is an ongoing (alleged) breach of planning control that has occurred intermittently over several years, it is preferable to maintain the status quo rather than for a judge at an...
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
