AC-2025-LON-000036 - [2025] EWHC 2701 (Admin)

The substance of Ground 2 is that the parties had agreed that the sequential test was passed, and the Inspector should not have “look[ed] behind this agreement”.

The parties did agree by way of statement of common ground that the Council did not have available alternative sites. “These are sites that either benefit from an existing planning permission, and contain vacant pitches, or are allocated and deemed readily available sites which may not currently benefit from planning permission”. It was, however, a matter in dispute between the parties as to “Whether or not there is other land ‘readily available’ and deemed a ‘reasonable alternative’ which has been presented to demonstrate that the Sequential Test would be passed”.

It is noted that the Applicant’s counsel did not expand upon Ground 2 within the oral hearing. He seemed to consider that he would have a longer period of time to expand his oral submissions, despite the case being given a 1 hour listing and there being no application for an extension of the usual hour listing. Taking that into account, I do not accept the Respondent’s position that Ground 2 may not have been proceeded with. I take it that it was not abandoned, however given that the parties had not agreed that the sequential test was passed, Ground 2 is in any event unarguable.