Anonymised Summary of the Judgment (High Court, Planning & Environment)

Factual and Procedural Background

This judicial review challenges a decision of the Respondent dated 25 April 2024 granting planning permission for the demolition of two houses and construction of a residential development comprising 31 units at a site described in the opinion as 353 and 363 Blackhorse Avenue. For confidentiality and consistency, the site is referred to below as the site at [Number] Main Street and [Number] Main Street in The City. The development proposals included an apartment block, associated car and bicycle parking, landscaping, access works and ancillary site works.

The planning application was made to the local planning authority on 28 February 2022, was the subject of a further information request on 16 June 2022 and a response on 9 September 2022. The planning authority decided to grant permission on 6 October 2022 by reference to the then-operative development plan. A first-party appeal was filed to the Respondent by the first named applicant (acting on behalf of the local residents group) on 1 November 2022. A new city development plan came into effect in December 2022. The Respondent's inspector recommended grant subject to conditions in a report of 28 February 2024 and the Respondent issued the impugned decision granting permission subject to 19 conditions on 25 April 2024.

Proceedings for judicial review were issued on 18 June 2024 and leave to bring the proceedings was granted on 29 July 2024 by Judge Holland. The matter was listed for hearing and was heard on 7 November 2025. A draft judgment was circulated to the parties on 11 November 2025. Judgment was delivered by Judge Humphreys on 28 November 2025.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether relief by way of judicial review should be granted where applicants advance multiple, predominantly technical complaints after their merits-based objections were rejected (i.e. whether such a "scattergun" approach gives rise to justiciable legal grounds entitling relief).
2. Whether the application documents were so defective (alleged non-compliance with the statutory application form and Articles 22–23 and validation provisions of the Regulations) that the Respondent's decision was invalid.
3. Whether the Respondent failed to exercise statutory powers or complied with fair procedures arising from the adoption of a new development plan during the appeal process (section 131/137 issues) and, relatedly, whether interested members of the public were entitled to further procedural steps.
4. Whether the proposed development materially contravened the newly operative development plan (specifically Table 15-1 and objectives dealing with building height/heritage) and whether any such contravention was material.
5. Whether European/Aarhus-related principles (access to justice, standing, ability to raise points not made in the administrative process) permitted the applicants to advance certain EU-based complaints at judicial review stage despite not having raised them earlier.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants' Arguments

• The impugned decision was invalid on multiple domestic law grounds, including alleged failures to notify or consult statutory consultees, alleged deficiencies in the planning application documentation (including the statutory form and drawings), and lack of jurisdiction arising from changes in the operative development plan.
• The decision was also said to be invalid on European grounds: in particular the Respondent allegedly failed at screening to consider potential significant effects on a designated European site (an SPA) and its screening conclusions were irrational and inadequately reasoned.
• The applicants asserted that the post-adoption application of the new development plan (CDP 2022–2028) required the Respondent to allow wider input and/or to apply specific plan thresholds (Table 15-1) in a way that the Respondent had not done.

Respondent's Arguments

• The applicants failed to raise many of the pleaded points before the Respondent, and they did not particularise some grounds adequately in accordance with the Rules of Court.
• Where the applicants had opportunities to participate (including by way of a direct invitation to the first applicant to comment after the new development plan came into effect) they either did not raise the points or the material before the decision-taker already addressed the matters complained of.
• Relief should be refused as a matter of discretion in respect of minor or technical defects that caused no prejudice and which were remedied or addressed in the administrative process.

Developer (Notice Parties) Arguments (labelled here as "Company A / Company B")

• The application was validated by the planning authority and the court should presume regularity in the validation decision; only substantial or misleading omissions render an application invalid.
• Any alleged errors were either factually incorrect assertions by the applicants (for example, archaeological matters and distances were dealt with in the application) or were remedied at the further information stage and subject to conditions.
• Table 15-1 of the new development plan is advisory/guidance in character and the application contained substantive material addressing the topics listed; there was no material contravention.
• If any technical deficiency existed, the appropriate exercise of discretion would be to refuse certiorari because there was no prejudice and quashing would be disproportionate and impractical.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court set out a structured, cumulative eight-fold test for the grant of relief by way of judicial review in planning cases. The limbs are, in summary: (i) jurisdictional requirements (standing, time limits, capacity, exhaustion of alternative remedies, procedural compliance); (ii) workability of the legal point (sensible, enforceable interpretation); (iii) proper pleadings (specificity and clarity); (iv) standing to raise each issue (including the Aarhus/Article 9 nuances for environmental matters); (v) assessment through the lens of material before the decision-taker at the relevant time; (vi) onus of proof resting on the applicant to evidentially establish defects; (vii) that any demonstrated error must transcend harmless, technical or non-material error; and (viii) the court's discretion (including proportionality and prejudice).

The court then applied these tests to the pleaded cores of the applicants' case. The analysis proceeded in stages:

1. On jurisdiction and standing the court noted the tension between general standing requirements (sufficient interest) and the Aarhus/European law principle that environmental NGOs or members of the public may raise some points even if not previously raised in the administrative process. The court relied on CJEU authorities and domestic cases to explain that while some EU/Aarhus claims may be entertained even if not raised earlier, domestic procedural rules and the facts may nonetheless make such belated challenges inappropriate.
2. On pleadings and the character of the applicants' case, the court criticised the "scattergun" approach. It emphasised that pleadings in JR are stringent and must provide a clear route-map from alleged facts to relief. The court highlighted authorities showing that repetitive or unfocused pleadings are liable to be disallowed.
3. On the "workability" limb, the court insisted that statutory and plan provisions must be given workable, sensible interpretations and that a rigid, unworkable interpretation that would paralyse administrative processes should be avoided.
4. On the evidential/onus limb, the court reiterated that the onus lies on applicants to show defects. For scientific, AA or EIA-related challenges applicants must ordinarily supply admissible (often expert) evidence to show reasonable scientific doubt; mere assertion is insufficient. Where an error is demonstrated, the onus may shift to opposing parties to show harmlessness.
5. On the "lens" principle, the court confirmed that generally the legality of an administrative decision is assessed by reference to the materials before the decision-maker at the time. Belated introduction of points that were not before the decision-maker is generally not a basis for quashing, save in defined exceptions.
6. Applying those principles to Core Ground 2 (alleged defective application documents), the court found that the alleged errors were, on the facts, minor or rectified in the process (for example, archaeological matters were identified and mitigated; further information addressed plant/noise details). The court emphasised substantial compliance, the planning authority's validation decision and the absence of any evidential showing of prejudice. Discretion therefore weighed against relief.
7. Applying the tests to Core Ground 4 (alleged failure to exercise powers in respect of the new development plan and fair procedures), the court held that the existence of public notice and other public opportunities (including an invitation under s.131 on 2 December 2022 and an actual response by the first applicant on 16 December 2022) meant the applicants had practical opportunities to raise the points. The court also considered a bright-line duty to re-open processes whenever a new plan comes into force would be unworkable. The court further found that the applicants did not show prejudice or material issues that would have warranted reopening the process.
8. On Core Ground 5 (alleged material contravention of Table 15-1 and heritage objectives), the court undertook a textual and practical analysis of the development plan provisions. It noted that the plan language mixes advisory and mandatory terms and that Table 15-1 operates as thresholds/guidance. The court accepted that certain plan requirements could, in principle, be material, but found on the pleaded and evidential materials the applicants had not identified specific substantive deficiencies in what was actually submitted; the applicants relied on titles of reports rather than showing how substantive content was missing. On heritage objectives, the court concluded there was no evident material contravention on the facts, archaeological issues had been considered, and conditions were imposed to mitigate any identified risk.
9. On the overall application of the eight limbs, the court concluded that many of the applicants' points were either not properly pleaded, not supported by admissible evidence, technical or immaterial, or remedied in the administrative process. The court emphasised the discretionary nature of JR and the requirement that any error be material and prejudicial to justify quashing a planning permission.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The proceedings are DISMISSED.

The court ordered dismissal of the proceedings. The judgment records that, unless a party applies otherwise in writing before the next mention date, the order will be perfected with no order as to costs (including reserved costs). The court noted that, where appropriate, unsuccessful applications to vary any provisional costs order can be addressed under procedural rules, and listed the matter for a further administrative mention to confirm the order.

Implications:

• The direct consequence is that the Respondent's grant of permission for the development at the site (the permission of 25 April 2024) stands and judicial review relief was refused.
• The court emphasised and illustrated several procedural and substantive principles relevant for future planning judicial reviews: strict pleading and evidential requirements, the presumption of regularity and substantial compliance in validated applications, the need to demonstrate prejudice or materiality rather than rely on technicalities, and the court's willingness to apply the harmless-error doctrine (including receiving developer evidence where appropriate to exclude reasonable doubt).
• The judgment does not purport to create a novel rule of wide application but sets out a clarified, cumulative test (the eight-fold path) to assist courts and practitioners in assessing when relief by way of judicial review is appropriate in planning and environmental matters. The court emphasised that where EU/Aarhus issues arise the court's discretion and the domestic procedural regime must still be applied sensibly and in a workable manner on the particular facts.

Additional Notes

- The summary above is strictly confined to the content and reasoning set out in the judgment circulated and delivered by the court in the provided opinion. No extra-textual facts or inferences have been introduced.