Irwin Mitchell’s Planning & Environment Blog
Welcome to our monthly blog series from the Planning & Environment team at Irwin Mitchell.
Each month, we will be bringing together the latest articles written by our team covering key developments, legal insights, and practical guidance across the planning and environmental law landscape. Whether it's new legislation, landmark cases, or upcoming policy changes, our aim is to keep you informed about what is happening in the planning and environmental world.
In this edition, we are highlighting the articles we have published during October. We hope you find them insightful and useful in your work.
Explore the highlights below:
By Claire Petricca-Riding
22 October 2025
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in CG Fry & Son Ltd v Secretary of State & Somerset Council [2025] UKSC 35, a case considering the requirement for further environmental information at the Reserved Matters or discharge of condition stage. The Supreme Court addressed two key issues: first, whether the Habitats Regulations require an appropriate assessment before discharging conditions under Reserved Matters of an outline permission; and second, whether national policy, specifically paragraph 181 of the National Planning Policy Framework, can mandate such assessments where the Habitats Regulations do not apply, including for Ramsar sites. The Court held that Regulation 63 applies to Reserved Matter approvals concerning European sites, meaning updated scientific data may necessitate further assessment. However, Ramsar sites are not covered by these regulations, and national policy cannot override legal rights conferred by planning permission.
Key Planning Law Changes in the latest amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill
By Anna Tranter
17 October 2025
Several further amendments to the Planning & Infrastructure Bill were introduced earlier this month, claiming to bring a “pro‑growth” agenda to accelerate development. Key proposed changes included measures that would automatically extend the implementation period for decisions under challenge; allow the Secretary of State to issue directions restricting a local authority's ability to refuse to grant planning permission in certain circumstances; and provisions limiting Natural England's role in responding to nature-related queries in planning matters by allowing them to decline to respond where a statement setting out how such requests will be handled has been published.
Builds, Bills and bills: Planning & Environment Updates from the Labour Party Conference
By Anna Tranter
14 October 2025
At the 2025 Labour Party Conference, the government made a series of planning, housing, and environmental initiatives. Speaking on the recently launched New Town Taskforce report, it was confirmed that work will start on three of the identified new towns before the next election. Of the twelve towns proposed, each is promised to deliver at least 10,000 homes, with 300,000 affordable and social homes funded through a £39 billion investment. Planning reforms were hinted at – which we have since seen come to light in the recent raft of amendments to the Planning & Infrastructure Bill discussed above, though there are still questions over the possibility of a so-called “Nature Bill” which may be forthcoming. Climate commitments include ending onshore oil and gas licences, banning fracking, and expanding solar installations on schools and NHS sites.
By Chyna Fairclough-Jones
13 October 2025
In the case of Dharmeshkumar v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities and another [2025] EWHC 25123 (Admin), the Planning Court clarified Section 55(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which excludes certain works (internal alterations or those not materially affecting external appearance) from being classified as “development.” The court affirmed use of the Hewlett four-outcome test, emphasizing that materiality is context-specific and a planning judgment. The Court also ruled that, under GPDO paragraph W(12)(a), when approved plans are ambiguous, decision-makers may lawfully refer to wider application documents to resolve uncertainty. This ruling reinforces the correct application of Section 55(2)(a) and clarifies prior-approval interpretations.
