STOP PORTLAND WASTE INCINERATOR v SoS for HCLG, POWERFUL PORTLAND LTD & DORSET COUNCIL (2025) EWHC 777 ( Admin ) is concerned with a decision on a Planning Appeal in relation to part of a Policy in a Development Plan and an Application, to Dorset Council, as Waste Planning Authority, for a detailed planning permission for a energy recovery facility. The challenge was a reasons challenge. At para 27 Holgate LJ highlighted some points of particular relevance :-

1. To be legally adequate, the reasons for a decision need only provide conclusions on the principal important controversial issues, and NOT on every material consideration or matter raised;
2. Reasons (a) must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law and (b) should enable unsuccessful opponents of the development proposed to understand how the policy or approval underlying the decision may impact upon future such applications;
3. Decision Letters should be read in a straightforward manner, recognizing that they are addressed to parties well aware of the issues involved and the arguments advanced;
4. A reasons challenge will succeed ONLY if the party aggrieved can satisfy the Court that it has genuinely beed SUBSTANTIALLY PREJUDICED by the failure to produce an adequately reasoned decision

On 28 October 2025, the House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee has issued a publication and made Recommendations in relation to WASTE CRIME; and on 29 October 2025 OFWAT has launched a CONSULTATION on proposed changes to PERFORMANCE COMMITMENTS IN RELATION TO POLLUTION.

See R ( BADGER TRUST ) v NATURAL ENGLAND (2025) EWHC 2761 (Admin) on (1) justification for redactions in disclosed decision-making documents : parties cannot contract out of their open justice principles obligations : para 13; and (2) AARHUS Cost Caps : in deciding whether to allow a variation, the central issue is prohibitive expensiveness : para 29.

The Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA)is made up of the ten Greater Manchester Councils and the Mayor of Greater Manchester. The GMCA has submitted a Joint Development Document (the Plan or DPD) to the SoS for examination on behalf of 9 of the 10 Councils. The SoS appointed an Inspector to examine the Plan. The Inspector recommended adoption of the Plan. In SAVE GREATER MANCHESTER GREEN BELT LTD v Sos for HCLG and GMCA the Claimants, who opposed the development of housing on green belt land, applied for statutory review of the adoption .The Court addressed examination of DPDs (paras27-34), challenge to a DPD ( paras 35-43), policies in the NPPF in relation to Green Belt (paras 44-101), the Examination (paras 102-108), and the Inspector’s Report (paras 109-122). All 5 Grounds of challenge were dismissed : paras 10/11 and 123).

The Government has announced changes to the Environmental Permitting System.

The Environmental Agency will be empowered to consider, following consultation, which activities should be exempt from requiring an Environmental Permit.

In CG FRY & SON LTD v SoS for Housing, Communities and Local Government (2025) UKSC 35 the Supreme Court holds that where a development has a potential impact on a PROTECTED SITE under the CONSERVATION OF HABITATS AND SPECIES REGULATIONS 2017 ( and the HABITATS DIRECTIVE as “assimilated law” and its strict “ precautionary approach”), an appropriate Environmental IMPACT ASSESSMENT under Regulation 63 can be carried out at the stage of a Decision (1) to give reserved matters approval or (2) to discharge conditions attached to such an approval where that would result in an authorisation for the project to proceed, BUT LPAs cannot at later stages of the planning process that had been approved in principle at the outline stage. Lord Sales also addressed RAMSAR SITES, designated under the RAMSAR CONVENTION and Section 57A of the WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981, and protected pursuant to the NPPF.

DHARMESHKUMAR v SoS & BRENT COUNCIL ( 2025) EWHC ( Admin ) is an appeal to a Planning Inspector against an Enforcement Notice served by the Council. It addresses questions about what works constitute development within Section 55 of TCPA 1990 and the interpretation of a planning decision by reference to extraneous material.

In REED V ICO ( 2025 ) UKFTT 01131 ( GRC ) on Regulation 5 of the Environmental Information Regulations, the duty to make available environmental information on request, it is held, at para 39, that the relevant time is the time at which the request is made.

R ( Williams ) v CYNGOR GWENT ( 2025 ) EWHC 2395 ( Admin ) concerns whether a planning decision had been made on a mistaken basis and whether the Officers Report and the accompanying documents were materially misleading. This was addressed at paras 35-45 inc. At paras 37 & 38 the Judge said that when considering that question “ account is to be taken of the readership “. Those to whom a Report is addressed are not planning lawyers nor planning consultants. The adequacy of the explanations contained in a Report are to be considered against the background of the local and other knowledge that readers will have.

In R ( RICKARDS ) v EAST HERTS DC ( 2025 ) EWHC 2238 ( Admin ) the Court states, at para 68, that crucially, with permitted development rights, the principle of development is already established by statute, and that what is left to consider is how that development should be implemented. At para 72 the Judge adds, in relation to lightness of touch, there is a distinction to bedrawn between considering whether permitted development rights apply and the details of the development subject to which those rights are exercised.