Planning analysis: In Save Greater Manchester Green Belt Ltd v SSHCLG, the High Court confirmed that the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test for Green Belt boundary changes is a matter of planning judgment, not a rigid legal standard. The inspectors lawfully applied flexible criteria and were not constrained to finding a ‘fundamental change in circumstances’, affirming that decision-makers may adopt structured approaches provided they remain open to all relevant considerations.

Planning analysis: In Bond, the Planning Court confirmed that a local planning authority (LPA) was empowered to amend its adopted policies map through a simple resolution of its cabinet, where an administrative error had resulted in the map incorrectly showing a parcel of land being excluded from the green belt. There was no requirement for the LPA to follow the statutory procedure for amending a local plan, as the local plan was not affected by the administrative error.

Planning analysis: In Trafford Metropolitan BC v SSHCLG, the court quashed an inspector’s decision to allow an outline B2/B8 scheme within the New Carrington strategic allocation because the inspector treated the absence of an adopted masterplan as justifying no infrastructure contribution. The court held that the Places for Everyone policy requirement for proportionate, allocation-wide infrastructure contributions still had to be grappled with, alongside an assessment of highways impacts in the allocation-wide context.

Planning analysis: In Gladman v Secretary of State, the court held that the inspector erred in law in his failure to properly grapple with and provide reasons for departing from earlier conclusions of inspectors addressing the same issues in respect of local policy. The decision is a useful reminder of the duty upon decision-makers with regard to consistency of decision- making and the need to adequately set out reasons for the decision.

Planning analysis: On 19 May 2025, the High Court handed down its judgment in Ross v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Renewable Energy Systems Ltd. The court confirmed that ‘overplanting’ in solar energy schemes may be justified for other reasons beyond the need to address solar panel degradation. The court’s interpretation of the National Policy Statement EN-3 provides necessary clarity and guidance on the practice of ‘overplanting’ for solar developments. Written by Sarah Fitzpatrick, head of Planning, partner; and Melissa Diaz, trainee solicitor at Norton Rose Fulbright LLP.

Planning analysis: In Dharmeshkumar v SSHCLG, the Court of Appeal confirmed that permission for an appeal to the Court of Appeal following a Planning Court decision in enforcement notice proceedings is governed by the general permission test in CPR 52.6. Under that test, permission may be granted where the appeal has a real prospect of success or there is some other compelling reason for it to be heard. It is not necessary to show that the appeal raises an important point of principle or practice.

Planning analysis: In Thomas Armstrong (Aggregates) Ltd) v SSHCLG, the court dismissed a challenge to an inspector's decision that a 1954 mineral permission was not capable of review under the Review of Old Mineral Permissions (ROMP) regime in Schedule 13 to the Environment Act 1995 (EA 1995). The court held that a mineral permission must remain legally capable of implementation before it can be reviewed under the statutory scheme. It also confirmed that land subject only to an 'in-principle' mineral permission, where required details have never been approved, may fall outside the definition of a 'relevant planning permission'. The decision provides important guidance on the interaction between ROMP reviews, extant permissions and the principles derived from Pilkington and Hillside.

Planning analysis: In Thomas Connors v Bromley LBC, the High Court dismissed a judicial review challenge to a local planning authority (LPA)’s decision to decline to determine a retrospective traveller-site planning application under section 70C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990). Fordham J held that a significant change in national planning policy concerning grey belt land and traveller sites did not, on the particular facts, render the decision unlawful. The court found that the authority was entitled to focus on the existence of extant and repeatedly disobeyed enforcement notices, the absence of any ‘reset’ through compliance, and the statutory purpose of section 70C. The decision illustrates the breadth of the section 70C discretion and confirms that changes in planning policy will not invariably be mandatory considerations when that discretion is exercised.

Corporate analysis: Michael Booth QC of New Square Chambers explains the key findings and practical significance of Vald. Nielsen Holding A/S and another company v Baldorino and others, the judgment of which he says constitutes a useful summary of points and authorities regarding issues arising in fraud and conspiracy claims.

Planning analysis: In Oceana UK v Secretary of State for Energy Security, the court confirmed that appropriate assessment under the Habitats regime can lawfully operate on a genuinely staged basis, with detailed evaluation of accidents, climate impacts and in-combination effects deferred until later consents where project specifics are not yet known. It held that, provided the initial decision is shown to be innocuous on a precautionary basis and the regulatory framework guarantees further assessment ‘at every relevant stage’, early-stage authorities may lawfully conclude that certain impacts cannot presently be assessed with site-specific precision.

Planning analysis: In ArcelorMittal Kent Wire Ltd v Medway Council, the High Court rejected a judicial review challenge to Medway Council’s grant of outline permission for redevelopment at Chatham Docks, where the claimant argued the decision unlawfully permitted office use, was based on misleading officer advice about safeguarding B2/B8 floorspace, and involved a misreading of Local Plan policy ED1. The court held the permission, properly construed, did not extend beyond the application, the officer report and advice did not materially mislead members, and the alleged policy error was in substance a disagreement with planning judgment rather than an error of law.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court has found that while a bankrupt was properly served with a statutory demand and bankruptcy petition, she lacked capacity to deal with or understand those documents or engage with the bankruptcy process. However, it declined to exercise its discretion to annul the bankruptcy order due to the time it had taken the bankrupt to bring the application once she had regained capacity and due to the bankrupt’s lack of co-operation with her trustee in bankruptcy. The case highlights the importance of complying with the rules of service of statutory demands and bankruptcy petitions and contains useful guidance on what is meant by ‘do all that is reasonable’ to bring the documents to the debtor’s attention. It also contains guidance on factors the court will take into account when exercising its discretion to annul a bankruptcy order under section 282 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). Written by Laura Newbery, managing associate at Addleshaw Goddard LLP.