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

Mr Riley-Smith, for the appellant, submitted that the Arup Review was so obviously material that it was unlawful for the Secretary of State not to take it into account when reaching his decision. He submitted that the Arup Review was realistically capable of causing the Secretary of State to reach a different decision. That, he submitted, flowed from the manner in which the Secretary of State treated the SKM Review and its findings and the role of the Arup Review. He submitted that the inspector had relied upon the SKM Review as showing that Appeal Sites A and B were in an area of green belt which was the most suitable area to develop and treated that as an important consideration. The Secretary of State accepted his conclusions. The Arup Review, however, superseded that conclusion and did not recommend the sites for release from the green belt for development.

In written submissions, counsel for each of the first three respondents made the following submissions. The question for the Secretary of State was whether very special circumstances outweighed the harm to the green belt and justified the grant of planning permission for these particular proposed developments. The Arup Review was not directly relevant to that question as it concerned the emerging local plan and the question of which areas should be released from the green belt. It had not been the subject of testing as part of the review process. It was not relied upon by the Council (which had refused the applications for planning permission and were opposing the appeals). Nor did the appellant ask the inspector or the Secretary of State to have regard to the Arup Review. No party to the inquiry supplied a copy of the Arup Review to the inspector the Secretary of State or suggested it was material to the decision. It was not, therefore, a mandatory material consideration to which the Secretary of State was required to have regard.