Samuel David Launchbury v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors

A statutory review of a planning decision is concerned with legal error, not a review of the planning merits. The weight given to material considerations and the resulting planning judgment are matters for the inspector, subject to irrationality and proper consideration of relevant matters. Decision letters must be read flexibly and need explain the principal controversial issues, but need not address every argument or consideration. A challenge succeeds only where the reasoning is unintelligible or inadequate and substantial prejudice is shown. Where development is subject to biodiversity net gain requirements, permission need not ordinarily be refused solely because the application does not yet demonstrate the required gain, provided the statutory biodiversity gain condition can be discharged.

The claimant sought permission for a statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 of an inspector’s decision allowing an appeal under section 78 and granting planning permission for a six-pitch gypsy and traveller site. The claimant lived near the site and challenged the inspector’s conclusions on landscape, flood risk and biodiversity net gain. He argued that those conclusions were irrational and insufficiently supported by the evidence, rather than merely matters of planning judgment.

Permission had been refused on the papers and was renewed orally before the High Court. The central issue was whether the grounds disclosed an arguable error of law warranting permission for the statutory review.

1. Permission refused. The challenge was, in substance, a disagreement with the inspector’s planning judgments and therefore a merits challenge.
2. Under section 288, the court may intervene for legal error, irrationality, failure to consider relevant matters or inadequate reasons. The weight given to material considerations and matters of planning judgment lie within the decision-maker’s jurisdiction. The court must not substitute its own planning assessment.
3. Decision letters are to be construed flexibly. They must be intelligible and adequately explain why the decision was reached on the principal important controversial issues. They need not rehearse every argument or refer to every material consideration. A reasons challenge requires genuine substantial prejudice.
4. The inspector was entitled to conclude, on the evidence, that the absence of a landscape or visual impact assessment did not prevent her making a planning judgment. Her discussion of the landscape, surrounding built form, site layout, landscaping and visual impact adequately explained the conclusion that there would be no material harm.
5. The inspector adequately considered the revised layout proposed to move caravans from flood zone 2 into flood zone 1, including the effect on visual impact and the arrangement of the site. Her conclusion was not irrational.
6. The statutory biodiversity net gain framework in section 90A and Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 required a 10% gain. However, the biodiversity gain condition operated after permission was granted, and development could not commence until the biodiversity gain plan was approved. It was therefore generally inappropriate to refuse permission merely because the application did not yet demonstrate the required gain. The inspector was entitled to conclude that the absence of secured off-site gains or biodiversity credits was not a reason to refuse permission, and no separate express condition was required.
7. The costs order made on 28 November 2025 was upheld.

• High Court (Planning Court): Permission for the section 288 statutory review was refused on the papers and the renewed oral application was refused by [2026] EWHC 109 (Admin). The costs order was upheld.