‘His Honour Judge Jarman QC gave a speech “Administrative Court in Wales: Challenges and Opportunities” at Swansea University on 19 November 2014.’
Judiciary of England and Wales, 6th March 2015
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘The Hon Mr Justice Hickinbottom gave a speech at The First Administrative Court in Wales Lecture on “Administrative Court in Wales – Evolution or Revolution” on 20 February 2014.’
Judiciary of England and Wales, 6th March 2015
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘It was implicit in the terms of sections 73 and 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, that in an appropriate case a planning authority considering an application under section 73 for planning permission to proceed with a development without complying with conditions attached to an existing permission might grant, under section 73A, retrospective planning permission for a development already carried out, subject to conditions imposed under section 70. There might be some unusual circumstance that would require the inspector to forewarn the applicant that he was minded to act under section 73A.’
WLR Daily, 25th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The High Court has dismissed a challenge to the land acquisition order that will allow Tottenham Hotspur Football Club (THFC) to complete the redevelopment of the site of its north London stadium, according to reports.’
Full story
OUT-LAW.com, 23rd February 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
Regina (Wingrove) v Stratford-on-Avon District Council [2015] EWHC 287 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 65
‘The wide discretionary power to refuse to determine a retrospective planning application for development subject to an enforcement notice under section 70C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was intended to provide local planning authorities with a tool to prevent such applications being used to delay enforcement action being taken against development. An applicant’s motive to use a retrospective application to cause such delay would clearly be a consideration in favour of a decision to invoke that discretion.’
WLR Daily, 12th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A councillor at Winchester City Council has won a High Court judicial review challenge over the local authority’s decision to adopt an updated scheme for a £165m city centre redevelopment without conducting a procurement exercise.’
Local Government Lawyer, 13th February 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A legal challenge is being launched in the high court against plans to build the garden bridge over the river Thames.’
The Guardian, 17th February 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Marc Willers QC explores the recent High Court judgment in which it was found that the conduct of Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, constituted indirect discrimination against Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers.’
Garden Court Chambers, 12th February 2015
Source: www.gclaw.wordpress.com
‘The High Court has issued a ruling that clarifies the scope of a local authority’s power to decline to determine a retrospective planning application when an enforcement notice is in place. The case of Wingrove v Stratford on Avon District Council [2015] EWHC 287 (Admin) was the first time the ambit of s. 70C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 had been considered.’
Local Government Lawyer, 12th February 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
Regina (Gra Acquisition Ltd) v Oxford City Council [2015] EWHC 76 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 47
‘There was no exhaustive or exclusive statutory rule to the effect that a single building and its curtilage, whatever their nature, scale or relationship to each other, could never be listed as a conservation area pursuant to section 69 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.’
WLR Daily, 22nd January 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 9th February 2015
‘The High Court has dismissed a council’s challenge to a planning inspector’s decision not to allow it to impose a standardised fee for administering and monitoring planning obligations under a section 106 agreement.’
OUT-LAW.com, 9th February 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The First-tier Tribunal has ordered a London council to disclose redacted information in a viability assessment that led to the authority allowing a developer to vary the amount of affordable housing on a major site.’
Local Government Lawyer, 6th February 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Pubs in England listed as important by communities will not be demolished or have their use changed without planning permission under proposed legislation.’
The Guardian, 26th January 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Communities Secretary Eric Pickles “unlawfully discriminated” against Romany Gypsies wanting pitches in the Green Belt, the High Court has ruled.’
BBC News, 21st January 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has rejected a challenge to the adoption of a planning document which seeks to direct the location of development in a district of south Essex.’
OUT-LAW.com, 13th January 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘“[T]here is force in the observation attributed to Václav Havel, no doubt informed by the dire experience of central Europe: “The Gipsies are a litmus test not of democracy but of civil society”.” So said Lord Bingham of Cornhill in the House of Lords in South Buckinghamshire DC v Porter (No 1).’
No. 5 Chambers, 18th December 2014
Source: www.no5.com
‘This was a judicial review of LB Enfield’s plans for borough wide additional HMO licensing and selective licensing of all PRS properties. It did not go well for Enfield, who appear to have not quite grasped the consultation requirements.’
NearlyLegal, 3rd January 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Regina (Larkfleet Homes Ltd) v Rutland County Council [2014] EWHC 4095 (Admin); [2014] WLR (D) 534
‘Section 17(7)(za) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and regulation 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 did not prevent the allocation of precise sites for particular development in a neighbourhood development plan.’
WLR Daily, 8th December 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The “safeguarding directions” issued by the Secretary of State for Transport, exercising statutory powers, for phase 1 of the proposed high speed rail network (“HS2”) linking London to Manchester did not fall within the scope of plans and programmes which set the framework for future development consent of projects within the meaning of articles 2(a) and 3(2) of Parliament and Council Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment.’
WLR Daily, 9th December 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025