Hamble Parish Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors

In a challenge under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s. 288, the court reviews an inspector’s regulation 63 decision on ordinary public-law principles and does not rehear the planning or scientific merits. The competent authority must make its own evaluative judgment, may give significant weight to Natural England’s advice, and must have cogent reasons if it departs from it. Regulation 63 requires consultation, but not a separate duty to draw every evidential point to the consultee’s attention; a procedural choice is unlawful only if irrational. The no-reasonable-doubt standard does not require absolute certainty or consideration of every argument. Adequate reasons may rest on separate conclusions that there will be no material hydrological change and that, even if there is one, it will not harm site integrity.

Cemex sought permission to extract sand and gravel from a former airfield. Hampshire County Council refused permission, but the Secretary of State’s appointed inspector allowed Cemex’s appeal after a public inquiry. Hamble Parish Council challenged the decision under s. 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It alleged unlawful handling of Natural England’s advice and inquiry evidence, legal misdirection about the weight of that advice, and irrationality in the conclusion that hydrological effects would not adversely affect European or Ramsar sites. Lang J refused permission on the papers; the renewed application raised whether any ground was realistically arguable.

1. Outcome. Permission to apply for judicial review was refused. None of the three grounds was realistically arguable.
2. Applicable principles. Under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the competent authority must make its own evaluative judgment under regulation 63(5). The court’s role is supervisory. Applying R (Wyatt) v Fareham Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 983, review proceeds on ordinary Wednesbury principles, without substituting the court’s scientific assessment. Natural England’s advice may receive significant weight, with cogent reasons required for departure. The reasoning required when disagreeing with an expert body may depend on the quality of that advice and the subject matter, as recognised in R (Together Against Sizewell C Ltd) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero [2023] EWHC 1526 (Admin).
3. Ground 1. Regulation 63(3) imposed a duty to consult Natural England, but no separate positive duty to draw particular evidence or factual points to its attention. A failure to gather relevant evidence would be unlawful only if irrational, applying R (Balajigari) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 673. The inquiry documents were publicly available and the inquiry was livestreamed. The Inspector had also assessed the competing expert evidence himself. Consulting Natural England again without highlighting a point he did not regard as material was within the range of rational procedural options.
4. Ground 2. Read with the preceding paragraph, the Inspector’s reference to R (Morge) v Hampshire County Council [2011] UKSC 2 showed that he gave Natural England’s advice significant weight. It did not show that he treated the absence of an objection as creating a conclusive presumption. His separate analysis of the expert evidence meant there was no material legal misdirection.
5. Ground 3. The principles in Bloor Homes East Midlands Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWHC 654 (Admin), affirmed in St Modwen Developments Ltd v SSCLG [2017] EWCA Civ 1643, meant that the Inspector’s reasons had to address the principal controversial issues, not every argument. The Inspector gave two independently sufficient conclusions: the development was unlikely to cause a material change in flows to the springs, and any material change would not adversely affect site integrity. The no-reasonable-doubt test did not demand absolute certainty or a separate assessment of every worst-case scenario. The challenge sought to re-run the expert evidence and disclosed no irrationality.

High Court (Planning Court): Lang J refused permission on the papers on 20 February 2026. On renewal, Mr Justice Chamberlain held that none of the grounds was realistically arguable and refused permission to apply for judicial review ([2026] EWHC 2138 (Admin) ).