Sandy Park Farm Partnership v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors [2026] EWHC 422 (Admin)
Sandy Park Farm is a useful Planning Court decision on three recurring issues: how much weight can be given to a non-statutory masterplan, how a development-plan policy should be interpreted where the masterplan points to a different solution, and how an Inspector should approach European protected species at outline stage.
The claim challenged an Inspector’s decision allowing outline permission for up to 350 homes at St Bridget Nursery in Exeter. Mr Justice Mould dismissed all three grounds.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2026] EWHC 422 (Admin)
- Court
- High Court, Planning Court
- Judgment date
- 26th February 2026
- Judge
- Mr Justice Mould
- Case number
- AC-2025-LON-000779
The masterplan did not have the status of the development plan
The Newcourt Masterplan promoted access to the appeal site from Newcourt Way. The Inspector accepted that the appeal scheme, which relied on Old Rydon Lane, conflicted with that aspect of the Masterplan.
That did not mean the appeal scheme conflicted with development-plan policy CP19. The Core Strategy required only general regard to the Masterplan and did not prescribe one exclusive access solution. The court held that the Inspector had lawfully interpreted CP19 and had been entitled to conclude that an alternative access arrangement could still comply with the policy.
Limited weight to the Masterplan was a lawful planning judgment
The Inspector gave the Masterplan limited weight because it was neither part of the statutory development plan nor a supplementary planning document, because the Core Strategy treated it as guidance, and because there had already been departures from it in development-control decisions.
Mould J rejected the argument that those were legally inadequate reasons. The statutory development plan has priority, and it was both rational and understandable for the Inspector to give greater weight to adopted development-plan policy than to informal guidance.
Protected bats and the later licensing regime
The site contained several species of protected bat and eight buildings with identified bat roosts. The Inspector therefore had to have regard to the Habitats Directive and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
Applying R (Morge) v Hampshire County Council, the Inspector did not have to decide the future protected-species licence application himself. His task was to consider whether the development was likely to offend the protected-species regime and whether a licence was unlikely to be granted.
The court held that the Inspector lawfully considered the public benefits, the absence of a clear satisfactory alternative and the proposed mitigation. Conditions requiring an ecological mitigation and enhancement strategy, together with reserved matters, were capable of securing the bat building, integrated roosts and other measures recommended by the ecological assessment.
Older ecological surveys did not automatically make the decision unlawful
The ecological survey material dated mainly from 2020 and 2021, while the appeal was determined in January 2025. Guidance indicated that surveys more than three years old were likely to need updating.
That did not create an automatic rule. The Tameside duty required the Inspector to take reasonable steps to inform himself, but the intensity of inquiry was a matter for him subject to rationality. On the evidence, including the extent of known bat activity, identified mitigation and Natural England’s lack of objection, it was rational to regard the information as sufficient.
Why Sandy Park Farm matters
The case is a useful reminder that masterplans can be important material considerations without acquiring the statutory priority of the development plan. The weight given to them depends on their status, wording, history and relationship with adopted policy.
It also reinforces the Morge approach to protected species: the planning decision-maker must engage with the licensing regime, but does not simply duplicate the later licensing decision.
Read the full Sandy Park Farm judgment
Planning Geek holds the approved High Court judgment in the protected case law library. Gold Members can open the PDF below.
Sandy Park Farm Case Law Page Updated: 11th September 2026