Our Cases

Plane wing on runway

Application for permission to appeal filed in relation to Gatwick Airport expansion

Posted on in Legal News, Our Cases

Peter Barclay, Chairman of the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign (GACC), has filed his application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The appeal concerns the decision of Mr Justice Mould of 23 June 2026 to dismiss the judicial review claim of Mr Barclay, as well as the related claim of Communities Against Gatwick Noise Emissions (CAGNE). The judicial review contested the decision of the Secretary of State for Transport to make a development consent order (DCO) for the expansion of Gatwick Airport via the northern runway project (NRP) and was heard over four days in January 2026.

The appeal focuses on two grounds of challenge: the failure of the judge to grapple with both the misinterpretation of government policy by the Secretary of State and the fundamental flaws in Gatwick Airport’s economic case, specifically the demonstrable and irrevocable flaws in GAL’s business passenger forecast relied upon by the Secretary of State in her assessment of national economic benefit.

Given the current consultation taking place on the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS), the appeal also has wider ramifications, particularly on the correct interpretation of the existing ANPS and any revisions to it. Continue reading

Marine licence relating to River Tees dredging subject to suspended quashing and redetermination

Posted on in Legal News, Our Cases

The Court has today made an order for the suspended quashing of the 10 year licence granted by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) to PD Teesport Ltd on 5 November 2025, which permits dredged material to be dumped at sea.

The Claimant, Dr Simon Gibbon, a retired industrial chemist, challenged the grant of the licence on seven grounds.

The grounds focused on the failure by the MMO to require adequate assessment of the environmental impacts of the licence, including: misapplying the OSPAR Guidelines for the Management of Dredged Material, which on Mr Gibbon’s case required the testing of far more samples than the MMO had accepted as sufficient; failing to consider alternatives to disposing of dredged material at sea; failing to require an environmental impact assessment; failing to carry out a lawful habitats assessment; and failing to take account of evidence that the dredged material was contributing to seal pup mortality in the Tees Harbour. The grounds also challenged the lawfulness of the licence due to the unenforceability of a condition excluding certain areas from dredging. Continue reading

Gatwick protest

Judicial review of Gatwick Airport expansion decision

Posted on in Legal News, Our Cases

The judicial review against the government’s decision to approve the expansion of Gatwick Airport will commence tomorrow in the High Court in London. The case will be heard over 4 days (20-23 January 2026) before Mr Justice Mould.

The proposed expansion of the airport will enable the dual operation of a second runway at Gatwick and facilitate an increase of approximately 13.2 million passengers.

Two claims have been brought against the decision, by Peter Barclay (Chairman of the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign) and CAGNE.

The claims challenge the decision on climate change, economic, interpretation of national policy and noise grounds.

Peter Barclay of GACC is represented by Goodenough Ring Solicitors, who have instructed Alex Goodman KC (Landmark Chambers) and Gethin Thomas (39 Essex Chambers).

Photo

Protecting green space in Plymouth

Posted on in Our Cases

Campaigners have won a hard-fought victory in Plymouth to protect a small but valuable undesignated green space from development.

Plymouth City Council had reached an agreement to dispose of the open space as “surplus to requirements” in 2020, to allow its development for what were promised to be affordable homes. So keen was the Council to develop the site for these affordable homes that they accepted a discounted offer for the land and waived the community infrastructure levy.

Despite the Council later accepting that the land was not in fact surplus to requirements, and it instead being the only open space available and easily accessible to residents, the planning committee approved the building of 5 homes, which would have resulted in the almost total loss of the open space and the felling of most of the mature trees and hedgerow on the site. Continue reading

Protecting the River Wey and its surrounds

Posted on in Our Cases

Send Parish Council has succeeded in its judicial review challenging a development threatening the River Wey and its surrounding area.

After the Parish Council obtained permission at a renewal hearing, the Defendant, Guildford Borough Council, and the Interested Party, Hawksmoor Homes Ltd, consented to judgment agreeing that the Defendant Council had failed to have regard to development plan policies designed to protect the Corridor of the River Wey and had failed to give adequate reasons for their decision approving the development.

Send Parish Council was represented by Goodenough Ring Solicitors, who instructed Gethin Thomas of 39 Essex Chambers

Who’s behaving ‘manifestly unreasonably’?

Posted on in Our Cases

Public bodies that try to use the ‘manifestly unreasonable’ exception under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 to impose blanket refusals on environmental campaigners seeking information will need to meet exacting standards.

In the case of Paul Cawthorne v Information Commissioner [2024] UKFTT 978 (GRC), the First Tier Tribunal overturned the decision of the Information Commissioner and ordered Telford and Wrekin Council to reconsider the request for test results of leachate coming from the Stoneyhill landfill site.

Without providing substantiating evidence, the Council had suggested the appellant had behaved in an abusive and aggressive manner, made repeat, scattergun and futile requests, was pursuing personal grudges, was being unreasonably persistent, intended to cause annoyance, and claimed there was not purpose or value in the request.

The Tribunal considered the circumstances surrounding the appellant’s request against the five factors set out in the Court of Appeal decision of Dransfield Information Commissioner & Devon County Council and Craven v Information Commissioner and DECC [2015] EWCA Civ 454. Continue reading

Photo wwag

Campaigners secure important tree protections

Posted on in Legal News, Our Cases

R (Wellingborough Walks Action Group) v North Northamptonshire Council & Stanton Cross Developments LLP [2024] EWHC 1225 (Admin)

The High Court has confirmed that the tree preservation regime and planning regime must work hand in hand and that developers relying on the planning permission exception to the tree preservation regime do not have free rein.

This is welcome news for environmental campaigners, particularly those in Wellingborough and members of WWAG, some of whom were arrested and cautioned by the Police for protecting the beloved ‘Walks’, an historic boulevard of lime trees.

Dan Kolinsky KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, clarified that, “[t]o the extent that the planning permission can be carried out in a way which does not necessitate the loss of trees, then the exception will not be available”. In other words, the requirement for any felling to be ‘necessary’ to implement a planning permission (regulation 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation)(England) Regulations 2012), is a strict one.

The judgment also confirms that all relevant planning conditions must be discharged before the exception can be relied upon. This is not only correct in law it is also pragmatic, given that it may assist in determining whether it is indeed ‘reasonably possible’ to save further trees.

This judgment should act as a reminder to local authorities, including NNC, that they have a vital role to play in safeguarding protected trees and must scrutinise closely developers’ claims that trees need to be felled, when in fact it is simply expedient to do so.

While no enforcement has taken place against the developer for the unlawful felling of 16 protected trees, the Court recognised the gravity of the developer’s actions in ordering the Interested Party to contribute to the Claimant’s costs.

The judgment of the High Court is available at: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2024/1225

Alice Goodenough of Goodenough Ring Solicitors acted for WWAG instructing Will Upton KC of Six Pump Court Chambers.

Increased fairness in the DCO regime but no relief for Ramsgate residents and environmental campaigners

Posted on in Legal News, Our Cases

R (Dawes) v Secretary of State for Transport and RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 560

Following the judicial review brought against the Secretary of State for Transport for the approval of a DCO granting approval for the re-opening of Manston Airport, the Court of Appeal has made an important clarification to the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010.

The Secretary of State and Interested Party had argued that Rule 19 of the 2010 Rules – which requires the Secretary of State to consult where new evidence or facts mean that the Minister is inclined to disagree with the examining authority – do not apply after the examining authority has published its report.

In departing from the ruling of Dove J in the High Court, Lord Justice Lewis, with whom Lord Justice Jackson and Lord Justice Warby agreed, held that Rule 19 applies at any time after the completion of the examination and before a decision is reached. This conclusion flowed from the clear wording of the Rule and ‘reflects the purpose underling the rule’, the aim of which is ‘to ensure procedural fairness’.

This is a welcome clarification and ensures increased fairness in the DCO process where the Minister intends to depart from its expert advice, as was the case here.

Regrettably for Ms Dawes, the residents of Ramsgate and climate campaigners, the Court did not find that the new evidence was a reason for the Secretary of State’s decision. Instead, the report submitted by the applicant, which relied on 24 interviews that were never published, and which the Secretary of State’s examining authority considered should be given little weight as a result, was held to be the basis for the decision.

Given the woeful economic outlook for Manston Airport, as almost every other expert agreed, it is unlikely the airport will succeed. This is, however, of limited comfort given the social and environmental harm that is likely to be caused in the interim.

Alice Goodenough of Goodenough Ring Solicitors acted for the Claimant instructing Richard Harwood KC and Gethin Thomas, both of 39 Essex Chambers.

Solar farms – recent judgment – the green and the blue

Posted on in Our Cases
R (Galloway) v Durham County Council and Lightsource SPV 215 Ltd [2024] EWHC 367 (Admin)

Judgment is at:
https://hgrlaw.egnyte.com/dl/Snmv2q8D7V

Susan Ring of Goodenough Ring solicitors acted for the Claimant in this judicial review instructing Richard Harwood KC of 39 Essex Chambers. This was a judicial review of Durham County Council’s decision to grant planning permission to a BP PLC joint venture company for the installation and operation of a ground mounted photovoltaic (PV) solar generation system (solar farm), battery storage facility, electrical substation and associated infrastructure at Land to the East of Edge Lane, Maiden Law, Burnhope DH7 0RY under reference DM/22/01769/FPA .

The proposed solar farm was to be on restored open cast mining land next to a former mining village on the top of a steep hill where the only safe and level walking routes were on the restored land; ecology was another issue, the RSPB having objected on the grounds of adverse impact on nesting birds through loss of habitat and wholly inadequate habitat mitigation.

Local residents had urged the planning applicant not to take so much land for the solar farm in this ex-mining hill top village as this would adversely impact nesting birds and the much used footpaths on the land.

The Planning Committee members at the meeting to consider the planning application expressed concern about the huge amount of land take for the solar farm.

Mr Justice Fordham quashed the planning permission for the solar farm on the basis that the planning permission approved such a very large number and area of solar panels that they could only have a capacity under 50MW (the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project threshold) if the panels were considerably below the power of panels conventionally used and available; the Judge also drew attention to the use of inverters to control output which may lead to an excessive number of panels if the inverters are inefficient.

The LPA failed to take this into account in granting planning permission.

Fordham J also quashed a last minute non material amendment decision designed to save the planning permission.

The community hopes there will now be proper consultation and consideration (as envisaged by the Judge) of how much land in reality needs to be taken for the blue areas for solar panel coverage and where the green areas for birds and community use and footpaths will be. Planning mediation of this dispute would clearly be in the interests of all parties.

Img 20240121 wa0000

Triumph of community engagement at planning inquiry: recognition of the benefits of biodiversity for local and wider communities

Posted on in Legal News, Our Cases

The recent rejection of planning permission, sought by Buccleuch Properties (Kettering) Ltd, for logistics warehouses on a Local Wildlife Site (LWS) north of Kettering demonstrates what a local community can achieve on behalf of their local environment.

Under the umbrella of the Save Weekley Hall Wood (SWHW) campaign and supported by the Local Wildlife Trust, detailed ecological evidence about the environmental significance of the site was gathered by dedicated volunteers over a number of months and presented to the inquiry.

Such evidence would not have otherwise been forthcoming, the Council contesting the application for various reasons but not on ecological or biodiversity grounds. This, despite the fact that the LWS, which is a lowland meadow, a habitat designated as of ‘principal importance’ under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (s.41), would have been almost entirely destroyed as a result of the development. Continue reading