‘R (o.t.a. Dilner) v. Sheffield City Council [2016] EWHC 945 (Admin), Gilbart J, 27 April 2016. A quick note on the latest Aarhus Convention point to come before the domestic courts.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 3rd May 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The UK government is to be sued in the high court over its air pollution plans, just a year after losing at the supreme court and being ordered to fulfil its legal duty to cut pollution rapidly.’
The Guardian, 28th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘If the UK leaves the EU what will happen to the UK’s environmental policy? This is not, as outlined below, a purely academic question.’
Cloisters, 7th April 2016
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘The Broads comprised over 300 square kilometres of wetland landscapes in east Norfolk and Suffolk. The Broads Authority (“the authority”) was constituted under the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 and had a general duty to manage the Broads. The authority was also the local planning authority for the area and a harbour and navigation authority. However, the Broads was not a National Park designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, nor was the authority a National Park Authority under that statute. In January 2015 the authority passed a resolution by which it decided that the brand “Broads National Park” be adopted for marketing related purposes. The claimant sought judicial review of that decision on the ground, inter alia, that unless it conformed to the “Sandiford principle” it should not hold itself out as a National Park. That principle, set out in para 2.15 of the Report of the National Park Policies Review Committee 1974, stated that the preservation and enhancement of natural beauty should take precedence to the promotion of public enjoyment. An issue arose as to whether a public body which in law was not a National Park, could represent itself (and allow itself to be represented) as a National Park and thereby to enjoy the benefits of National Park status despite the fact that the public body had decided to cease to seek to become a National Park, inter alia, because it did not wish to be subject to the legal duties imposed on National Parks and National Park Authorities.’
Regina (Harris and another) v Broads Authority [2016] EWHC 799 (Admin)
WLR Daily, 12th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Cheshire East and Suffolk Coastal Councils are looking to take a key case over what are ‘relevant policies for the supply of housing’ to the Supreme Court.’
Local Government Lawyer, 18th April 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Royal Family has been the subject of a good deal of information rights litigation. The most famous is of course the Evans saga, about the ‘advocacy correspondence’ of Prince Charles. There have also been cases about (to name just a few subjects) the cost of police protection for the Royal Family, whether or not the Duchy of Lancaster is a public authority, royal wills and alleged heirs to the throne, as well as – most recently – whether the Duke or Duchy of Cornwall is a public authority for the purposes of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIRs). The most recent judgment focuses on Her Majesty the Queen herself, and reveals the views of Charles (J).’
Panopticon, 7th April 2016
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘The Duchy of Cornwall was established by Edward III in 1337 for his son. There is a landed estate (the Duchy) and a title (the Duke). Edward III was no doubt unconcerned about any legal duties that may attach to the Duchy; he had bigger fish to fry. In the 21st century, however, at least one knotty question of legal duty has surfaced.’
Panopticon, 5th April 2016
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘The Prince of Wales’s private estate has won an appeal against a ruling that would have forced it to open up its dealings to greater public scrutiny.’
BBC News, 4th April 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A developer sought planning permission for a development on Green Belt land comprising nine residential houses and a barn and associated dwellings for a livery business. The proposal involved redevelopment of previously developed land at a livery, the business of which was partly retained. The local planning authority refused planning permission. On the developer’s appeal, an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State considered that the proposal comprising new buildings was appropriate development and concluded that, applying the requirements of the sixth exception in para 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”), the new buildings would not impact adversely either on the openness of the Green Belt or the purposes for designation of the Green Belt. He accordingly allowed the developer’s appeal. The local planning authority applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the inspector’s decision, contending, inter alia, that para 89, which listed six exceptions to the general policy that new buildings were inappropriate development in the Green Belt, should be interpreted to mean that development which was not only operational development for new buildings but also involved a material change in use for those buildings did not fall within the categories of appropriate development, and that therefore the inspector had erred in law in treating the proposal as appropriate development, since the construction of the new houses also involved a material change of use to residential or mixed residential and equestrian use.’
WLR Daily, 15th February 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A bitter dispute between campaigners and councillors over a controversial programme to cut down thousands of trees has continued at a hearing at the High Court in London.’
The Independent, 22nd March 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘In a paper on behalf of the Climate Change and Energy Working Party, UK Environmental Law Association (UKELA), Stephen Hockman QC and Benjamin Haseldine chart the possible implications of the United Kingdom exiting the European Union on climate change and energy law.’
Six Pump Court, 7th March 2016
Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk
Planning, Environment & Property Newsletter (PDF)
39 Essex Chambers, February 2016+
Source: www.39essex.com
‘A district council has won a Planning Court appeal after an inspector granted outline permission for a 103-dwelling development.’
Local Government Lawyer, 18th February 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Jailing the 13 activists who last year chained themselves on Heathrow’s northern runway in protest at the airport’s expansion would represent a “massive threat” to the right to peaceful protest in the UK, according to John McDonnell and Caroline Lucas.’
The Guardian, 12th February 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A judge has been urged not to act on her threat to jail 13 peaceful environmental protesters – as campaigners warn that the British legal system’s long-standing tolerance towards non-violent direct action is under threat.’
The Independent, 2nd February 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Neonicitinoids are a group of active ingredients in plant protection products (pesticides). Their use is limited by a Regulation made by the European Commission. There is active debate about their effect on bees.’
No. 5 Chambers, 11th January 2016
Source: www.no5.com
‘A landowner who wished to challenge a local planning authority’s tree replacement notice on the grounds that the number of trees which the notice required him to replace was greater than the number of trees which he had removed from the land, bore the burden of proving his case by sufficient evidence.’
WLR Daily, 8th December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Public opinion regarding raptors and pheasant shoots should not influence the authorisation of buzzard control, the Administrative Court has ruled. Any derogations to the EU protection of wild birds should apply equally across wild avian species, irrespective of their popularity.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 14th November 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘An interesting point arose in this judicial review (for which see Rosalind English’s post here). Could the claimant get the benefit of an order that any costs he might have had to pay were capped at £5,000? The original judge, Thirlwall J, when granting permission, had refused this costs protection. Ouseley J granted it, though, because the claimant won, the order is academic (short of a successful appeal by the defendant). ‘
UK Human Rights Blog, 14th November 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In a report published on Tuesday 10 November the Law Commission recommends reforms to modernise and simplify the law regulating wildlife and create a flexible legal framework for the future.’
Law Commission, 10th November 2015
Source: www.justice.gov.uk/lawcommission
© Inner Temple Library 2025