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

By Ground 3 the Appellant complains about the Inspector’s treatment of the exception test.

The Inspector had concluded, as he was entitled to, that the site was in Flood Zone 3 a/b and he went on to apply the sequential test and determined that it was not met on the evidence. He noted that it was therefore not necessary to consider the exception test but, had it been necessary, he concluded that the exception test would not have been met. In those circumstances, Ground 3 is unarguable. It does not add anything to Ground 1 in any event, but fundamentally the Inspector concluded that the test was not met and that was a conclusion he was entitled to reach. Again, the fact that the Applicant’s Counsel did not expand on this ground orally does not indicate, in my judgment, that the ground had been abandoned – it was more a timing issue. However, it is not an arguable ground.