A recent High Court decision on a case from Oxfordshire considered the relevant factors to be taken into account by councils when determining whether to exercise their power to make a public path diversion order (PPO). The decision raises points for councils, vendors, purchasers and owners of adjacent land.
There has been a glut of new regulation and advice about how to deal with planning in a socially distanced world. A great deal of effort has been spent solving immediate problems, possibly at the expense of looking at more important long-term issues.
Faced with the force majeure of Covid-19, the past fortnight has exposed our planning system’s core features and its social and political spine. Central to this is the ability for decisions to be taken in a public forum.
A recent Supreme Court case involving a quarry in North Yorkshire has set a useful precedent on how to determine applications for green belt development. It is also a helpful reminder of the relationship between the respective roles of the courts and planning decision-makers.
In December, the High Court handed down judgment on an application by Asda Stores Ltd for judicial review of Leeds City Council's decision to grant planning permission for a mixed-use retail-led development on land immediately adjacent to an Asda superstore.
A recent High Court win for a Herefordshire fruit farmer has served to reinforce the point that planning guidance cannot, in itself, be relied upon as grounds for action - or decision-making on the part of planning committees.
The High Court challenge on the Guildford Local Plan, heard by Sir Duncan Ouseley QC at the end of 2019, crystallises justifications for plan-led green belt release where there is political will to meet housing needs.
In a recent case involving competing retail proposals in Yorkshire, the Information Rights Tribunal considered disclosure of instructions to counsel in the context of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.