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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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: New Towns Planning policy When planning permission is needed Highways and rights of way Compulsory purchase Localism Obtaining, amending and implementing planning permission Nationally significant infrastructure projects Marine planning Lex Talk®Planning: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Related Documents New Towns MHCLG publishes New Towns Taskforce report and initial response The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has released the New Towns Taskforce report together with its preliminary reply. The Taskforce—set up as an independent expert advisory panel in September 2024—pinpoints 12 candidate locations for new town projects across England and outlines proposed delivery routes. It advocates a blend of large-scale settlements, including urban extensions, urban regeneration schemes and standalone greenfield communities, with each new town providing at least 10,000 homes, of which no less than 40%...
R (on the application of Paul Knights) v South Norfolk District Council [2025] EWHC 2205 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling is significant as it clarifies the boundaries of what qualifies as a material consideration and the threshold for challenges alleging a failure to consider them. It also acts as a timely reminder of these planning law principles: assessing the effect of a scheme on the residential amenity of adjoining land serves a planning purpose because it concerns the character of how the land is used. It may feature as an explicit policy test or operate as a standalone material consideration planning judgment lies with the decision-maker, yet this does not relieve them of the obligation to rely on evidence. There must be evidential material supplying the factual basis on which a planning decision-maker draws conclusions....
In this issue: Flood risk and planning Compulsory purchase Planning policy Nationally significant infrastructure projects Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Related Documents Flood risk and planning Flood risk PPG update confirms flood risk assessments can remove need for Sequential Test in surface water cases The government has revised the Planning Practice Guidance ( PPG) on flood risk and coastal change. The update explains how the Sequential Test should be undertaken, setting out a new definition of a ‘reasonably available’ site, advice on defining the ‘area of search’, and confirming that robust, site‑specific flood risk assessments can dispense with the Sequential Test for surface water situations. This enables developers to adopt a proportionate, evidence‑led strategy, especially where surface water flooding is the primary concern. In some instances, a strong site‑specific flood risk assessment can remove the...
In this issue: Planning appeals and objections Planning judicial and statutory review Heritage and natural environment Planning for nationally significant infrastructure Buildings and Building Regulations Planning ( Wales) Bill Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Related Documents Planning appeals and objections Court of Appeal clarifies when post-inquiry material considerations must inform the decision maker ( Re Keep Chiswell Green v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government) After an inquiry concludes, determinations by the Secretary of State can take months. During that interval, issues not aired at the inquiry yet pertinent to the appeal may emerge or be uncovered. In Keep Chiswell Green, the Court of Appeal held that a decision will be irrational—and therefore unlawful—if the decision maker omits to assess any matter that is ‘so obviously material’. Put differently, it is something which no reasonable decision maker, in the particular context, would have overlooked. That...
Keep Chiswell Green v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and others [2025] EWCA Civ 958 What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Appeal held that issues which emerge or are identified after the inquiry but before the decision is issued, and which are plainly material, must be considered by the decision maker. The criterion for deciding whether something is so obviously material is the public law standard of irrationality. Yet the question is not limited to whether a fresh point could realistically lead the decision maker to reach a different outcome. It requires an appraisal of, among other factors, the nature of the matter being determined, and the pertinence and weight of the new material to that determination. The mere possibility that the new point might prompt a different conclusion is inadequate. The new matter must be...
Herstmonceux Museum Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Another [2025] EWHC 1863 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling reinforces how rigorously the courts insist on procedural exactitude in planning litigation, especially in relation to enforcement notices and related challenges. For developers, it stresses the need to grasp the narrow jurisdictional pathways: where a ground (a) appeal results in a deemed planning application, any challenge lies, if at all, under TCPA 1990, s 289 and not under TCPA 1990, s 288. Starting proceedings on the incorrect statutory footing invites the claim being dismissed at the threshold. Any attempt to proceed under the wrong statutory route risks the claim being struck out at the very outset. For both developers and local planning authorities, the decision equally exemplifies the austere character of procedural...
On 1 September 2025 the government published a consultation inviting further views on streamlining the infrastructure planning system. It builds on earlier reform efforts, including the NSIP Action Plan ( February 2023), the Planning Reform Working Paper ( February 2025), and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill ( PIB). The paper reflects on recent successes and shortcomings, and puts forward broad changes across each stage of NSIP consenting. Together, the proposals are intended to support the government’s objective of consenting 150 infrastructure projects during this term. There is a great deal for stakeholders to consider, and developers in particular should watch for key updates on topics highlighted in this article. Pre-application consultation A notable NSIP change is the PIB’s removal of the statutory pre-application consultation requirement (the Bill is still before Parliament). Nevertheless, developers are expected to continue engaging with...
R (on the application of Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, Kent Branch) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Others (transcript) [2025] EWHC 1781 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment marks the first time the High Court has addressed the correct construction of the amended CRWA 2000, s 85( A1) duty, and how it should be applied when a planning decision bears upon an AONB. The principal points are: The revised CRWA 2000, s 85( A1) obligation, which requires authorities to ‘seek to further’ the objective of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of AONBs, is a stronger requirement than the previous s 85(1) duty merely to ‘have regard’ to that objective. However, the terms in which the duty is framed are qualified. It does not impose an obligation to deliver any particular outcome. Nor, even in its...
In this issue Planning conditions, obligations and CIL When planning permission is needed Securing, varying and implementing planning permission Planning for nationally significant infrastructure Planning policy Daily and weekly news updates New and revised content New Q& As Related documents Planning conditions, obligations and CIL Court quashes permission where section 106 agreement not published pre-decision ( Chidswell Action Group v Kirklees Council) In Chidswell Action Group v Kirklees Council [2025] EWHC 2256 ( Admin), the High Court set aside the permission because the local planning authority did not publish the section 106 agreement before issuing the decision notice, breaching the DMPO 2015 and denying the public a fair chance to comment. Building on Greenfields [2024] EWHC 2107 ( Admin), the ruling reinforces that developers and LPAs must ensure draft obligations are made available in good time for...
R (on the application of Andrew Rickards) v East Hertfordshire District Council [2025] EWHC 2278 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? For Part 6 agricultural prior approvals, the ruling clarifies that although the GPDO ( SI 2015/596) grants permission in principle, authorities must still reach—and evidence in the case officer’s report—a targeted assessment of implementation, expressly addressing effects on designated assets, including: ancient woodland, where refusal is the norm absent wholly exceptional justification; and listed buildings, where great weight attaches to conservation, including their setting. Silence is unlikely to be cured by a charitable reading on review and risks being quashed. Declarations of unit size backed by a planning statement can suffice without disproportionate enquiries or a site visit, yet applicants should proactively grapple with nearby constraints, and the GPDO site-notice duty must be strictly...
R (on the application of Chidswell Action Group) v Kirklees Council [2025] EWHC 2256 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The High Court confirmed that, to satisfy article 40(3)(b) of the Town and Country Planning ( Development Management Procedure) ( England) Order 2015, SI 2015/595 (2015 DMPO), any section 106 agreement must appear on the planning register before the authority issues the decision notice. Uploading it later the same day, or only after the permission is granted, will not do; publication has to be early enough to give objectors and other interested persons a genuine window to provide informed representations. The court emphasised that keeping the draft back while talks continued produced a serious transparency deficit, all the more so where biodiversity protections lay at the heart of the committee’s resolution. The judgment aligns with the Court of Appeal’s ruling in...
In this issue: Compulsory purchase orders Obtaining, amending and implementing planning permission Planning and Infrastructure Bill Planning for nationally significant infrastructure Buildings and Building Regulations Lex Talk®Planning: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Related Documents Compulsory purchase orders High Court challenge to a Compulsory Purchase Order ( Saravanamuthu v Secretary of State for Communities, Housing and Local Government) The claimant disputed the lawfulness of the London Borough of Newham ( James Riley Point) Compulsory Purchase Order 2023, arguing, among other points, that the inspector’s method for evaluating the scheme’s financial viability was irrational and unlawful. Government guidance states that, where an acquiring authority seeks to exercise powers under section 226 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ( TCPA 1990) to make a compulsory purchase order, the...
Arun District Council— BEW Parcel SC1, Barnham On 21 July 2025, Arun District Council resolved to approve planning consent for a new scheme comprising 1,250 dwellings (with related infrastructure) in Barnham. The proposal put forward 15% affordable housing alongside reduced education contributions, both justified on viability grounds. Under the Council’s Local Plan, major sites are expected to deliver 30% affordable housing. At the time, the authority’s housing land supply stood at 3.4 years. The Officer’s Report concluded that this shortfall rendered the Local Plan out of date for decision‑making, and, in that context, recommended approval. That approval was made conditional on a satisfactory Section 106 agreement, with the Council depending on the inclusion of an upwards‑only review clause. This mechanism secured continuing reassessment of the affordable housing provision over the course of delivery and, where viability improved in future, required the developer to...
In this issue: Planning for nationally significant infrastructure Environmental impact assessment, strategic environmental assessment and appropriate assessment Freedom of information and environmental information Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Related Documents Planning for nationally significant infrastructure Court rejects EIA and apparent bias objections to development consent order and applies the Gateshead principle to EIAs ( R ( Associated Petroleum Terminals ( Immingham) Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport)) The claimants contested a development consent order ( DCO) made for the Immingham Eastern ‘roll-on roll-off’ Terminal ( IERRT), a significant ferry terminal scheme at the Port of Immingham. The High Court refused the claim, holding the environmental statement ( ES) to be sufficient, with the evaluation of sufficiency resting with the decision-maker and not the court unless it is Wednesbury unreasonable. The judge further accepted the So S’s...
R (on the application of Associated Petroleum Terminals ( Immingham) Ltd and Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport ( Harbour Master for the River Humber, intervening) [2025] EWHC 1992 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? This case addresses environmental impact assessments ( EIAs) and the relevance of the Gateshead principle to DCO decision making. It does not establish new law but reinforces established tenets within the EIA regime, which will interest those involved in nationally significant infrastructure projects. The key points reaffirmed were: the adequacy of an ES is a matter for the decision maker, who applies their own judgment to its suitability; the court stressed it will not intervene in such evaluative judgments save in a case of Wednesbury unreasonableness an ES should include information ‘reasonably required for reaching reasoned conclusions on the...
In this issue: Heritage and natural environment Planning enforcement Planning policy Digital planning Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Related Documents Heritage and natural environment Planning considerations and felling control ( Smar v Secretary of State for Environment and Rural Affairs) Under the Forestry Act 1967, the Forestry Commission may issue a restocking notice where trees have been felled without a felling licence. Anyone receiving such a notice can appeal to the Secretary of State. This judgment is now the principal authority on how the planning and forestry systems interact. The Court of Appeal upheld the Secretary of State’s appeal, holding that the potential for land to be earmarked for housing, and the wider public interest in that development, do not bear on the decision to serve a restocking notice, nor on the scope of any appeal against it. The ruling offers clear direction for developers and...
In this issue: Planning applications and decisions Environmental impact assessment, strategic environmental assessment and appropriate assessment Planning conditions, obligations and CIL Freedom of information and environmental information Buildings and building regulations Housing Nationally significant infrastructure projects Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Related Documents Planning applications and decisions Court of Appeal considers procedural fairness of restrictions for speaking at planning committees ( Re Moakes v Canterbury City Council and others) The Court of Appeal in R (on the application of Sarah Moakes) v Canterbury City Council and another [2025] EWCA Civ 927 reaffirmed that a breach of a procedural rule—whether imposed by statute or adopted by a public authority, even if couched in mandatory terms—amounts to procedural impropriety but does not, by itself, invalidate the decision. To show procedural...
Introduction The Independent Water Commission’s Final Report lays out a bold, ambitious blueprint to overhaul governance, regulation, and strategic planning across the water sector in England and Wales. It proposes sweeping structural shifts: establishing integrated national regulators, reshaping the system-planning remit, and dramatically streamlining the industry’s planning frameworks. The report prioritises long-term resilience, cross-sector collaboration, and aligning environmental and growth ambitions through a National Water Strategy. It presses for statutory resilience benchmarks, mandatory smart metering, a national social tariff, and the consolidation of nine separate water plans into two core frameworks. Recognising the shortcomings of today’s fragmented regime, the Commission urges targeted legislative change, stronger consumer safeguards, and a more coherent model for infrastructure delivery, with the goal of building a sustainable, efficient, and transparent water sector equipped to meet the challenges of the next 25...
R (on the application of Alison Caffyn) v Shropshire County Council [2025] EWHC 1497 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling will interest anyone tracking the trajectory set by the Supreme Court in R ( Finch) v Surrey County Council [2024] UKSC 20, as the High Court relied on that approach when testing the legality of an EIA for planning permission for an IPU. The court confirmed that, for an EIA to be lawfully sound, the LPA must reach evaluative judgments on two fronts: Causation — whether the effect is sufficiently likely and linked to the proposed development to justify assessment; and Evidence — whether there is an adequate evidential foundation for a reasoned conclusion. A meaningful appraisal does not require absolute certainty or pinpoint precision. Mr Justice Fordham stressed that where an evaluative issue, reserved to the...
On 10 July 2025, the government placed the draft Building Safety Levy ( England) Regulations (the Regulations) before parliament. Drawing on powers created by the Building Safety Act 2022 ( BSA 2022), the Regulations establish the ‘building safety levy’ (the BSL, or the levy). The BSL applies to certain new residential developments. The proceeds will assist with meeting the costs of remediating building safety defects throughout England as a whole. The Regulations set out in detail when liability to pay arises, who must pay and at what stage, together with the approach for calculating the charge due. This article outlines the context for the Regulations and summarises their principal features in brief. Background to the levy Bringing in the BSL is a component of the UK government’s response to the Grenfell Tower Fire. It reflects the government’s view that leaseholders of...
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
