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

Fecha: 21-Oct-2025

The Grounds

33.

The Grounds of Appeal/Details of Claim do not clearly articulate the grounds upon which this appeal is brought and no grounds are clearly particularised. The summary contained within the response and skeleton argument of the Secretary of State accurately reflect the grounds of any appeal – albeit that matters were expanded upon during the course of oral submissions.

34.

The grounds can therefore be summarised as follows:

Ground 1: The Inspector wrongly rejected the Appellant’s flood risk evidence in the absence of any contradicting evidence from the Council and/or the Environment Agency (“the EA”) because it had not been reviewed by the EA. Alternatively he gave inadequate reasons for departing from the EA’s flood zone classification of the “residential part” of the Site.

ii)

Ground 2: The Inspector wrongly “look[ed] behind” the parties’ agreement in the flooding statement of common ground that the sequential test was passed because there were no other sequentially appropriate sites.

iii)

Ground 3: The Inspector wrongly applied the exception test to “surface water issues”; alternatively, should have found that it was passed.

iv)

Ground 4: The Inspector failed to consider extending the compliance period and/or granting a temporary consent in order that the EA might review the Appellant’s flood risk evidence.

Ground 5: The Inspector wrongly concluded that permission was required pursuant to the Hedgerow Regulations 1997/1160 for removal of the hedgerow bounding the Site in circumstances in which the parties had agreed that its removal was justified.

vi)

Ground 6: The Inspector failed to take account of the impact on protected species of the “lawful fall-back” use of the Site, measured against which the Appellant’s use would not have given rise to “any unacceptable adverse effect[s]”.