CA-2024-002732 - [2025] EWCA Civ 958

The appellant advances two grounds of appeal. First, the appellant submits that the judge was wrong to hold that the fact that the appellant had not raised the Arup Review with the inspector or Secretary of State operated as a preliminary procedural bar which prevented the appellant from arguing that the Secretary of State had failed to have regard to a material consideration when reaching his decision. Secondly, the appellant submitted that the Arup Review was so obviously material to the decision that the Secretary of State should have had regard to it before reaching a decision on the appeal.