On 29 August 2025 the Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal against the interim injunction granted to EPPING FOREST DC blocking the use of the BELL HOTEL in its area to accommodate asylum seekers pending a full hearing in October 2025. The Judge’s approach to the balance of convenience exercise and a range of public interest factors had been seriously flawed in principle and in a number of respects. In particular, it was desirable to preserve the status quo, and undesirable to incentivise protests.

In EPPING FOREST DC v SOMANI HOTELS LIMITED (2025) EWHC 2183 (KB) Eyre J from paragraph 25 sets out the relevant planning framework in relation to making a planning application for a material change in the use of buildings or land and when that will and will not amount to “development” requiring planning permission. There are two questions: whether a use is a change from the permitted use; and, if so, whether it is a change which is “material” in terms of planning considerations. The questions of whether there has been a change of use and, if so whether the change is material, involves matters of law and fact. Both questions are ultimately fact-specific and call for the application of planning judgment in particular circumstances.

There were in this case a number of factors which operated against a finding that there had been a change of use , and a number of other factors which supported such a finding. Questions as to whether interim relief is appropriate in a particular case will be “highly fact-sensitive”.

In R ( Moakes ) v Canterbury City Council (2025) EWCA Civ 927 it is held that the breach of a procedural rule, even if expressed in mandatory terms, does not necessarily render the resulting decision unlawful. To establish procedural unfairness a claimant has to establish that they had suffered material prejudice.

In R ( Save Wimbledon Park Ltd ) v Mayor of London (2025 ) EWHC 1856 ( Admin ) it is held that it is not ordinarily a material consideration to the determination of a planning application that the applicants would, if granted planning permission, need to overcome legal obstacles in order to implement the authorised development.

R ( CAFFYN ) v SHROPSHIRE COUNCIL ( 2025 ) EWHC 1497 ( Admin ) is a case about the approach taken by the Council as Local Planning Authority to the environmental effect of proposed intensive poultry units on a Shropshire farm. Fordham J finds in favour of the Claimant on some points and in favour of the Council on others. The decisions against the Council include that it was a material error to exclude from assessment post Air Pollution Information System projects subject to Environmental Permit but not planning decision.

In ROSS V SoS (“)”%) EWHC 1183 (Admin) an application to quash a decision to grant planning permission for a solar farm fails. The Court construes the NATIONAL POLICY STATEMENT FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY. In a rapidly changing field , the Policy does not purport to lay down detailed rules for all the potential ways or purposes for which renewal energy technology might apply.

In HM TREASURY v GLOBAL FEEDBACK LTD ( 2025 ) EWCA Civ 624 at paras 72-143 inclusive the Court of Appeal holds that a claim falls within the Convention only when there is a contravention of a legal provision which concerns, or has to do with, the environment, its protection or regulation. It does not extend to any decision in breach of any national law which has an effect or impact on the environment.

 Section 57(1) of TCPA 1990 provides that planning permission is required for the carrying out of ANY development of land.  Section 57(4) however creates an exception. In TITCHFIELD FESTIVAL THEATRE v SoS (2025) EWHC 883 (Admin) it is held that land in respect of which an enforcement notice has been issued is allowed to revert to  a previous lawful use, without needing to go through the process of obtaining express planning permission.

In WEST SUFFOLK COUNCIL v SoS (2025) EWHC 861 (Admin) the Administrative Court discusses the correct interpretation of the TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (USE CLASSES) ORDER 1987, specifically the phrase in Class E(e) “the provision of medical or health services, principally to visiting members of the public” and the phrase in Class E(g)(ii) “the research and development of product or processes”.

Lang J concludes that the natural and ordinary meaning of the language in both cases is clear. As to the former, two things are required. First, there has to be use of premises, or part premises, for the purpose of the provision of medical or health services. Second, the services have to be provided principally to visiting members of the public. As to the latter, two things are required. First, there has to be use, or part use, for the purpose of research and development. Second, that has to be of products or processes.

AMIN v INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY OF STATE for LEVELLING UP, etc (2025) UK FTT 00221 (GRC) is concerned with planning permission for a coal mine. In May 2017 West Cumbria Mining Ltd applied for planning permission for a new coal mine near Whitehaven. The Secretary of State, Michael Gove, called in the planning application. A local public inquiry was held. The Planning Inspector recommended that permission be granted. On 7 December 2022 the Secretary of State granted planning permission. On 10 July 2023 Mr Amin requested Read more »