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

By Ground 4 the Applicant complains that the Inspector had failed to extend the compliance period of three months or grant a temporary consent in order that the Environment Agency could review the flood risk evidence of the Applicant.

The Inspector did increase the compliance period from three months to nine months, although he had not been asked to do so at the Inquiry.

The Inspector also considered the potential of granting a temporary consent, again even though he had not been asked to do so, but concluded that it would not be acceptable to grant a temporary consent given the flood risk to the site, as he found it to be.

As has been pointed out by the Respondent, the Applicant could re-apply for planning permission if the Environment Agency were to approve the flood risk evidence presented by the Applicant.

Ground 4 is therefore not arguable.

The Applicant concentrated on the flooding issue at the oral hearing, and sought to rely upon Substation Action Save East Suffolk. Grounds 2, 3 and 4 were not expanded upon and, while not abandoned, there is no arguable case on these grounds. The Applicant was relying most heavily on Ground 1, but for the reasons set out above, this is a disagreement with the Inspector’s conclusions which were properly reached and it is not arguable that his conclusion can be impugned in an appeal. There was no “lack of understanding” on the part of the Inspector. Permission is therefore not given on ground 1, 2, 3 and 4.