High Court rejects challenge to lawfulness of grant of planning permission claimed to be 'inconsistent' with previous decisions

In Code Students (Nottingham) Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Nottingham City Council [2026] EWHC 2110 (Admin) (07 August 2026), Mrs Justice O'Farrell refused permission on all grounds, finding that it “is not sufficient for the Claimant simply to identify findings and decisions with which it disagrees”.

The case centred on two planning applications. The first was for the construction of two blocks of purpose-built student accommodation on Glasshouse Street, while the second concerned an 18-storey student accommodation block on Sherwood Street.

In December 2025, Nottingham refused permission for an application made by the claimant, Code Students (Nottingham) Ltd, to build the two blocks on Glasshouse Street. The claimant has appealed that decision to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and a hearing is fixed for 2027.

A month later, the council granted permission to a different developer, Vita Nottingham Guildhall, to build the 18-storey scheme on South Sherwood Street at the former police station and fire brigade stores.

The clamant applied for a judicial review in March this year, claiming that the council's decision to grant permission for the Sherwood Street scheme was unlawful, in part because it was inconsistent with its decision to refuse permission for its scheme.

The application was initially refused on the papers. The claimant’s renewed application was considered by O'Farrell J last month.

At the High Court, the developer advanced the following grounds:

1. The council failed to publish background documents pursuant to its statutory obligation under s.100D of the Local Government Act 1972 and contrary to its own Statement of Community Involvement dated 20 June 2003;
2. There were multiple inconsistencies between the refusal decision in relation to the Code Scheme application and the granted application in relation to the Guildhall Scheme, notwithstanding the issues being raised in them being substantially similar. At the very least, the council was required to give reasons for the different treatment, which it failed to do.
3. The council failed to have due regard with the South Sherwood Street scheme to the duty to preserve the Grade II listed building and its setting. In so far as it was considered at all, it was considered inadequately and conditions applied which were apparently intended to preserve elements of the building did not achieve that purpose.
4. The council failed to have regard to material matters namely: (i) overshadowing of the external amenity area; (ii) impact of the development on traffic sensitive streets; and (iii) whether the development impacts possible planned future development nearby.
5. The council had taken into account a standard landscaping condition as meeting the need for a condition to alleviate the wind impacts of the development which in reality it did not achieve.

The judge ultimately refused the application on all grounds, stating: "In a claim for judicial review, the Claimant must establish a public law error on the part of the decision-maker.

“The exercise of planning judgement and the weighing of the various issues are matters for the decision-maker and not for the court. It is not sufficient for the Claimant simply to identify findings and decisions with which it disagrees. The grounds disclose no arguable error of law or principle."

She added: "The court is satisfied that the papers do not disclose an arguable case that a ground for seeking judicial review exists which merits full investigation at a full oral hearing with all the parties and all the relevant evidence."

Adam Carey