Landmark Chambers

Home > Our people > Barristers > Andrew Parkinson

Andrew Parkinson

Andrew Parkinson

YEAR OF CALL 2010AParkinson@landmarkchambers.co.uk

Publications
Print all
CV (Print to PDF)

Andrew was called to the Bar in 2010 and accepts instructions in planning, environmental and property law. 

Planning and Environmental Law 

Andrew’s practice covers all areas of planning and environmental law. He represents developers, local authorities, and a variety of interested parties at inquiry, in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal.

He was ranked 5th in a recent survey of the top-rated planning barristers under the age of 35 (Planning Magazine, 2016). 

Examples of his work in the last 12 months includes:

  • Appearing un-led in the Planning Court in a number of successful judicial review challenges to the grant of planning permission by local planning authorities: see Butler v East Dorset District Council [2016] EWHC 1527 (Admin) – failure to interpret development plan policies and apply section 38(6) PCPA 2004; Cooper v Ashford Borough Council [2016] EWHC 1525 (Admin) – failure to apply section 38(6) PCPA 2004; R (XY) v Maidstone Borough Council [2016] EWHC 1436 (Admin) – failure to have regard to material considerations. 

    In 2015/16, Andrew has appeared in the Planning Court on eleven occasions and the Court of Appeal three times. He has a number of other pending High Court challenges.   

  • Appearing in the Court of Appeal for the main objector to a new railway proposed in Manchester, in a case concerning the correct interpretation of national planning policy on heritage (led by Richard Drabble QC). Andrew appeared (unled) for the leading objector at the 3 week inquiry into the proposal: see Whitby v SST [2016] EWCA Civ 444 and national press coverage here and here

  • Acting for RBKC in the “Red and white striped house” case in Kensington, including successfully upholding a section 215 notice requiring the property to be painted white in both the Magistrates and Crown Court (both following 2 day trials), and resisting proposals for a double storey basement at a subsequent 4 day planning inquiry: see national press coverage here and here. The case recently featured on a Channel 4 documentary, “Posh Neighbours at War”

  • Appearing in the Court of Appeal (led by Christopher Boyle QC) in an important case on the definition of “tree” under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and the scope of the TPO and TRN regimes: see Distinctive Properties v SSCLG [2015] EWCA Civ 1250. 

  • Appearing in a statutory challenge to a new retail development in the north-west (led by Christopher Boyle QC). The case concerned the correct interpretation of planning conditions, and whether and when planning conditions can be implied, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Trump: see Skelmersdale Ltd v West Lancashire BC [2016] EWHC 109 (Admin). 

Full details of Andrew’s work (by topic) is set out below: 

Housing: Andrew has acted for developers, local authorities and third parties in a range of housing appeals. Recent work includes: 

  • Acting for Lord Derby in relation to a recovered planning appeal for 400 houses in Newmarket, including at a 3 week planning inquiry (led by Christopher Boyle QC). 

  • Advising the RSPB regarding a proposed development of 5000 new dwellings at Lodge Hill, Kent (led by Nathalie Lieven QC).

  • Acting for successful objectors at inquiries into residential development in Mid-Sussex and the Peak District (both 4 day inquiries).

  • Advising and appearing for successful objectors to a proposed 10,000 dwelling new town in Horsham and Mid Sussex at the examination into the Horsham District Planning Framework.

  • Appearing for RBKC in a 4 day planning inquiry into a proposed office-residential plus double-storey basement development in Kensington, which resulted in the basement element of the proposal being rejected. 

  • Successful High Court challenges to the grant of planning permission for two gypsy developments: see Cooper v Ashford Borough Council [2016] EWHC 1525 (Admin) and R (XY) v Maidstone Borough Council [2016] EWHC 1436 (Admin). 

Neighbourhood Plans: Andrew has experience at all stages of the neighbourhood plan process, for both developers, LPAs and neighbourhood planning groups. Recent work includes: 

  • High Court challenges to adopted neighbourhood plans, including a successful challenge to the adoption of the Haddenham Neighbourhood Plan, led by Christopher Boyle QC (see commentary here), which resulted in planning permission being granted by the Secretary of State in the concurrent recovered appeal. 

  • Section 288 challenges to appeal decisions relating to NPs, including a successful challenge to the remitted decision of the SSCLG in Woodcock Holdings for failure to give adequate reasons following Hopkins Homes (led by Christopher Boyle QC): see Woodcock Holdings v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 1173 (Admin). 

  • Appearing at planning inquiries on both sides, where one of the main issues is the weight to be attached to an emerging NP, or conflict with an adopted plan. For a recent example see APP/H1033/W/15/3136353 – permission refused following conflict with the Chapel-en-le-Frith Parish Neighbourhood Plan. 

  • Advising local planning authorities in relation to NPs, including the relationship with the CIL regulations. 

Energy: Andrew has advised and appeared in relation to a number of energy projects and plans. Recent work includes: 

  • Appearing for successful objectors at a planning appeal into a proposed solar farm in Devon. Issues included landscape impact (both direct and cumulative) and heritage impact on the setting of a Grade II listed building. Andrew is also currently instructed in relation to another solar farm application, in Somerset. 

  • Successfully challenging, twice, the decision of East Dorset District Council to grant planning permission for a large solar farm in Mapperton. The first challenge succeeded for failure to give adequate reasons in a screening opinion which found that the development was not EIA development. The second challenge succeeded for failure to interpret the key development plan policy on renewable energy and failure to apply section 38(6) of the PCPA 2004: see Butler v East Dorset District Council [2016] EWHC 1527 (Admin). 

  • Advising and appearing for Buckinghamshire County Council at the Examination in Public into its Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, which was subsequently found to be sound. 

  • Planning inquiry into a proposal for a recycling facility for construction & demolition waste near Chichester. 

  • Assisted Rhodri Price Lewis QC in Veolia’s successful challenge to the refusal of planning permission for an Energy Recovery Facility at New Barnfield, Hertfordshire (see Veolia ES (UK) Ltd v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 91 (Admin)). 

  • Advising in relation to a potential challenge to nuclear waste dumping in the Blackwater Estuary. 

Andrew is the editor of an “Objector’s Guide to Fracking” (published with Leigh Day) and is author of the Garner’s Environmental Law chapters on climate change, energy efficiency of buildings and energy efficiency of products.

Infrastructure: Andrew has experience in providing advice and representation in relation to large-scale infrastructure projects, including TWA Orders and NSIPs under the Planning Act 2008. Recent work includes: (i) Appearing for the main objector to the Ordsall Chord (a new railway line in Manchester which forms a key part of the Northern Hub) at a 3 week inquiry TWA Inquiry (ii) Advising and appearing for Thames Blue Green Economy (unled in the High Court, led by Robert McCracken QC in the Court of Appeal) in its judicial review of the Thames Tideway Tunnel DCO: see Thames Blue Green Economy v SST [2015] EWCA Civ 876.

Heritage: Andrew regularly advises on heritage issues. He appeared in Whitby v SST [2016] EWCA Civ 444, a case concerning the correct interpretation of paragraph 133 of the NPPF in appeals where a development results in substantial heritage harm, and Butler v East Dorset District Council [2016] EWHC 1527 (Admin) where he succeeded in challenging a planning permission for failure to interpret development plan policies relating to heritage assets. He has successfully appeared at a number of planning appeals where a main issue has been the heritage impact of the development. 

CPO: He is regularly instructed in relation to Compulsory Purchase Orders. He advised the Kew Society in relation to the Brentford Stadium CPO and has previously advised leaseholders in relation to the Aylesbury Estate CPO and North Yorkshire County Council in relation to the A684 Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar Bypass CPO. 

Examinations in Public: Andrew has appeared at a number of Examinations in Public. Recent work includes: (i) Appearing for Buckinghamshire & Milton Keynes Fire Authority at the EiP into Wycombe District Council’s Delivery and Site Allocations plan (ii) Appearing for a participant opposing a proposed new town in the Horsham District Planning Framework (iii) Advising and appearing for Buckinghamshire County Council at the EiP into its Minerals and Waste Core Strategy. 

CIL/Section 106: Andrew has advised and given a number of recent talks on the recent affordable housing threshold changes; the vacant building credit; affordable housing appeals under s. 106BC; and the impact of reg. 122 and 123 of the CIL regulations. He appeared in Oxfordshire County Council v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 186 (Admin) on section 106 monitoring fees and regulation 122 (led by Nathalie Lieven QC). 

Enforcement/CLEUD: Andrew regularly appears at enforcement inquiries, s.289 appeals in the High Court, and enforcement prosecutions in the Magistrates and Crown Courts. Recent work includes: (i) four s. 174 inquiries concerning agricultural-residential conversions in the Green Belt, both for local authorities and appellants (ii) an inquiry against the refusal of a CLEUD in respect of a mobile home (iii) a successful s. 289 appeal concerning the correct interpretation of Part 1, Class B of the GPDO 2008 (roof extensions) (iv) two successful appeals for local planning authorities on the basis of concealment of breaches of planning control. 

Special Controls: Andrew has experience of section 215 notices, having appeared for RBKC at two appeals against a notice requiring the repainting of a property (in both the Magistrates and Crown Courts). The appeal was made under all grounds, and included issues relating to the scope of the power. He also has advised on a number of occasions in relation to the TPO and TRN regimes, and appeared in Distinctive Properties v SSCLG [2015] EWCA Civ 1250, an important case on the definition of “tree” under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and the scope of the TPO and TRN regimes. He has advised on Ancient Woodlands, and succeeded in Cooper v Ashford Borough Council [2016] EWHC 1525 (Admin) – failure to interpret development plan policies relating to Ancient Woodlands. 

Highways: Andrew has considerable experience in advising and appearing in relation to DMMOs and other highways issues. Recent work includes: (i) Appearing at five DMMO inquiries in the past 12 months, one of which lasted over 2 weeks (ii) appearing for TfL in the High Court successfully resisting an application for interim relief, involving issues under s. 130 and s. 143 Highways Act 1980 (iii) acting for TfL defending a judicial review in relation to the Greater London Low Emission Zone (iv) stopping up orders in the Magistrates Court.

Property Law 

Andrew regularly appears in fast-track and multi-track actions in the County Courts. He is able to advise on all aspects of property law and landlord and tenant disputes including easements, restrictive covenants, disrepair and service charges. He has advised on a number of boundary disputes and is able to advise on cases which involve a cross-over between property and planning law. He was currently involved in three cases relating to conditional sale agreements involving food-stores, which involves both property and planning issues (all led by David Holland QC). 

Recent contested trials include: 

  • Adverse possession trial where the main issue was whether the squatter occupied under a tenancy at will (Aylesbury Magistrates Court, 2 days)

  • Rent Act possession trial where the tenant raised a proprietary estoppel defence (Brighton County Court, 2 days)

  • Possession trial which raised issues regarding lease interpretation, estoppel and nuisance (Central London County Court, 2 days)

  • Boundary dispute and right of way trial, including issues of res judicata (Chelmsford County Court, 5 days)

  • Boundary dispute and adverse possession trial (First Tier Tribunal, 1 day)

  • Trial into alleged non-compliance of a landlord with section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (Westminster Magistrates Court, 1 Day)

  • Service Charges and breach of leasehold covenant trial (First Tier Tribunal, 6 Days).