Landmark Chambers

Home > Our people > Barristers > Richard Moules

Richard Moules

Richard Moules

YEAR OF CALL 2005RMoules@landmarkchambers.co.uk

Publications
Print all
CV (Print to PDF)

Richard was called in 2005. He specialises in planning & compulsory purchase, environmental, and public law.  He undertakes work for private developers, central and local government, public bodies and interest groups. He is a member of the Attorney-General’s “B” panel of counsel.

Richard is recommended in the legal directories:

"He's very good: he's commercial, picks up the points quickly and is a very clear, confident and thorough advocate. A barrister who's going places." Chambers and Partners (Planning, 2017)

"A clear, confident and thorough advocate. He's going places." "He is really clear, receptive to a good dialogue and very easy to work with. He tailored his advice to precisely what I wanted." "He's technically excellent and knows his way around." Chambers and Partners (Environment, 2017)

He is very bright, very approachable and unflappable.’ Legal 500 (Environment, 2017)

He is able to retain an extraordinary amount of information and use it to his advantage.’ Legal 500 (Planning, 2017)

Planning

Richard's planning practice encompasses all aspects of planning both at inquiries and hearings and in the Higher Courts. He also advises clients on all aspects of planning law, including policy formulation, development control and enforcement. Richard regularly advised on s.96A and s.73 applications for major development schemes. His practice also encompasses compulsory purchase and compensation, harbours, highways, rights of way, commons registration and village greens (both inquiries and in the Higher Courts).

(i) Planning Inquiries: Richard’s planning inquiry experience is wide ranging with a particular focus on large retail schemes (including recently having successfully acted in successful called-in inquiries for a designer outlet centre (Scotch Corner) and a shopping centre extension in England’s first business neighbourhood plan area (Intu Milton Keynes)). Richard is also acting for the developers in the Cribbs Causeway Mall call-in and in December 2017 he successfully acted for the Secretary of State defending the called-in Tollgate, Colchester decision.

(ii) Examinations in public: Richard has appeared at several Core Strategy examination hearings for developers and interest groups. He has also advised a number of local planning authorities on issues related to preparation of Development Plans.  

(iii) High Court planning work: His most recent high-profile planning cases include:

Richborough Estates Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2018] EWHC 33 (Admin) (successfully defending the Written Ministerial Statement on Neighbourhood Planning);

Gladman Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] EWHC 2768 (Admin) (on the implications of air quality and the ‘ClientEarth’ judgment for planning decision-making –one of the top 10 cases of 2017 in Planning Magazine);

R. (on the application of Mars Jones) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2017] EWHC 1111 (Admin) (successfully defending the North Wales Wind Farm Connection (Correction) Order 2017 DCO for a 17.4km high voltage pylon route to connect a number of wind farms in North Wales to the grid).

(iv) Planning Act 2008 and infrastructure: Richard regularly acts for Government defending challenges to Planning Act 2008 decisions (e.g. R. (on the application of Mars Jones) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2017] EWHC 1111 (Admin) and R. (on the application of Mynydd y Gwynt Ltd) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2016] EWHC 2581 (Admin); [2017] Env. L.R. 14). He has also acted for the Marine Management Organisation in the DCOs: Thames Tideway Tunnel; Hinckley Point C; Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility.

Richard has considerable airport-related experience. He acted for the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland at inquiry concerning the expansion of flights from Belfast City Airport. He advised London City Airport on its planning application for expansion, advised Bristol City Airport on expansion under permitted development rights and advised Foster+Partners in relation to the environmental implications of the proposed Isle of Grain airport (‘Boris Island’).

In terms of other infrastructure, Richard promoted a CPO to regenerate Peckham Rye Station & its environs and advised on the making of harbour revision orders for the Port of Dover.

(v) CPO: Richard advises on compulsory purchase and compensation issues. He promotes CPOs through public inquiries for development schemes, including for town centre redevelopments. His most recent major CPOs include successfully promoting: Peckham Rye Station (£30m scheme); Southall Gasworks Site (London Mayor’s first CPO);  Whitgift Croydon (for a Westfield & Hammerson joint venture shopping centre); and Lewisham Gateway (transport and town centre regeneration). Richard has also defended a number of High Court challenges to CPO orders including Swish Estates Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] EWHC 3331 (Admin). In the field of CPO compensation, Richard has acted for Nottingham City Council in a multi-million pound CPO compensation claim, he is currently acting in relation to the compensation claims arising out of the Southall Gasworks CPO acted for the Highways Agency in CPO compensation claim in respect of Bedford Bypass and the for Olympic Delivery Authority and Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport in relation to compensation claims arising out of the London Olympic & Paralympic Games.

(vii) Rights of way and highways: Richard has acted in a number of rights of way inquiries and regularly advises on highways issues including highways orders under the Highways Act 1980. He acted for the successful developer obtaining a stopping up order to facilitate the Intu Milton Keynes shopping centre extension. Richard is also acting for the City of London and Southwark LBC in arbitrations against TfL concerning the vesting of GLA roads, and the associated litigation (Southwark LBC v Transport for London [2017] EWCA Civ 1220 –permission granted to appeal to the Supreme Court).

In Wheeler v Norwich Magistrates, on an appeal by way of case stated, Richard successfully for the Ramblers’ Association and established that the Magistrates’ Court lacked jurisdiction to award costs to 3rd parties (usually the landowner) in complaints under the Highways Act 1980.

(viii) Marine Regulation (including Harbours and marine licensing): Richard's marine work covers a number of marine regulatory matters including statutory harbour powers, harbour dues, harbour orders, marine licensing and marine planning.

Richard advises on all aspects of marine regulatory law.  His clients include ports, harbours, local authorities, regulators and interest groups.  He has particular expertise in the following areas:

  • Interpretation of and compliance with statutory harbour powers
  • Harbours dues and use of revenue
  • Marine licensing
  • Marine planning
  • EIA
  • Water regulation
  • Environmental permitting

Recent/ongoing cases include:

  • Richard acted successfully for the interested party defending the first judicial review brought of the Marine Management Organisation: see R. (Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd) v Marine Management Organisation [2012] EWHC 3058 (QB).
  • Advising a statutory harbour authority in relation to its statutory harbour powers connected with harbour dues and other charges.
  • Advising a statutory harbour authority in relation to a number of claims against it connected with the levying of harbour dues.
  • Advising in respect of a challenge against a statutory harbour authority based on a failure to comply with statutory harbour duties and misappropriation of harbour funds.
  • Acting for the Marine Management Organisation defending its decision to grant a licence for marine dredging near Devonport Naval Base
  • Advising the Marine Management Organisation in relation to its licensing guidance and in relation to data sharing
  • Thames Tunnel: Acting for the Marine Management Organisation at the DCO hearings
  • Advising the Marine Management Organisation in relation to the drawing up of the first Marine Plans.
  • Hinckley Point C: Acting for the Marine Management Organisation at the DCO hearings
  • Acting for the Environment Agency at 2 week inquiry in test cases concerning its approach to water permitting

Environmental Law

Richard’s environmental law practice is wide-ranging, covering matters such as habitats and species protection, contaminated land, air quality, waste, access to environmental information, statutory and common law nuisance and all aspects of environment impact assessment, strategic environmental assessment and environmental permitting. He has also been involved in a number of cases concerning marine environmental issues.

(i) EIA: Richard has appeared in a number of important cases on EIA including: Bent v Cambridgeshire CC[2017] EWHC 1366 (Admin) (assessment of quarry noise); R. (on the application of Waters) v Breckland DC [2016] EWHC 951 (Admin) (enforcement and EIA); R. (on the application of Community Against Dean Super Quarry) v Cornwall Council [2017] EWHC 74 (Admin) (enforcement and EIA); and R (on the application of Oldfield) v SSCLG [2014] EWCA Civ 1446 (cumulative assessment). He regularly advises developers, planning authorities and interest groups on the adequacy of environmental statements.

(ii) SEA: Richard acted for the Government reviewing the SEAs produced prior to the revocation of Regional Strategies, he also advises local authorities on SEA for plan-making.

(iii) Air quality: Richard has particular expertise in air quality issues (affecting both human and ecological receptors). He acted in High Court cases such as Gladman Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] EWHC 2768 (Admin) and Wealden DC v SSCLG [2017] EWHC 351 (Admin).

(iv) Habitats and species protection law: recent cases include Wealden DC v SSCLG  [2017] EWHC 351 (Admin) (habitats and air quality); R. (on the application of Mynydd y Gwynt Ltd) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2017] Env. L.R. 14 (appropriate assessment & red kite); R (McMorn) v Natural England [2016] Env. L.R. 14 (licensing shooting buzzards). James has acted in numerous planning appeals concerning habitats and species protection issues. Richard advises on all legal aspects of habitats and species protection. He has worked on a number of high profile appeals and High Court cases in relation to shooting estates and shooting rights (including Walshaw Moor); RSPB v SSCLG [2014] EWHC 1523 (Admin) (appropriate assessment and airport development affecting birds).

Richard advised Natural England and a consortium of local planning authorities in relation to the Thames Basin Special Protection Area. He also regularly advises the Marine Management Organisation on habitats issues in relation to its licensing and enforcement decisions.

(v) Fracking: Richard has advised the Government on the drafting of secondary legislation regulating fracking.

(vi) Nuisance & other property/environmental issues: Richard often acts in property cases involving environmental law aspects. He is currently acting as junior to Tom Weekes QC in relation to a nuisance claim by residents who claim the Tate Modern extension is a nuisance/infringes their right to privacy. Richard successfully represented United Utilities Water Plc in the Supreme Court in a case concerning the right of utility companies to discharge into private watercourse (led by Jonathan Karas QC) (Manchester Ship Canal Co Ltd v United Utilities Water Plc[2014] 1 W.L.R. 2576)

(vii) Enforcement including civil sanctions: Richard regularly advises the Environment Agency in relating to environmental permitting decisions and enforcement, and acts for the Agency at inquiry defending their enforcement decisions. He advised the Environment Agency on its policy for accepting enforcement undertakings.

(viii) Environmental permitting and licensing: Richard regularly advises the Environment Agency in relation to environmental permitting issues. He acted for the Environment Agency at 2 week inquiry in test cases concerning its approach to water permitting

(iv) Waste: Richard regularly advises on complex waste issues. He is currently acting for the Environment Agency in a challenge to its end of waste decision-making in relation to waste oils.

(x) Water & flooding: In addition to advising developers and planning authorities on flooding issues in the planning context, Richard acted for the City of London defending its decision to proceed with the £17m Ponds Project on Hampstead Heath: R. (on the application of Heath & Hampstead Society) v City of London [2015] P.T.S.R. 987. Richard successfully represented United Utilities Water Plc in the Supreme Court in a case concerning the right of utility companies to discharge into private watercourse (led by Jonathan Karas QC) (Manchester Ship Canal Co Ltd v United Utilities Water Plc[2014] 1 W.L.R. 2576). Richard also regularly advises on environmental permitting affecting water and acted for the Environment Agency at 2 week inquiry in test cases concerning its approach to water permitting.

Public Law

Richard has a wide-ranging public law practice beyond planning and environmental cases. His public law practice includes social security, education, regulatory, local government (including local government finance), EU law and all aspects of human rights law. 

Richard has lectured and published widely on the subject of public law.

Property

Richard’s property work relates closely to his planning and environmental practice and includes proceedings in respect of injunctions for nuisance and trespass arising out of the development of land; disputes in respect of s106 agreements and restrictive covenants; and disputes arising out of development agreements which are conditional upon planning consent being obtained.