David Forsdick KC

Planning

David regularly appears in planning related challenges in the Courts, and has a wide-ranging planning practice covering infrastructure and housing with a particular expertise on valuation issues relating to viability including affordable housing and other contributions.

Recent inquiries: 

• For Trafford Council, resisting a 332 flat scheme on design and viability grounds (Jan 2022 – decision pending); for Hertfordshire County Council in successfully resisting major mineral extraction in green belt and a country park (Nov 2021); for Harrow Council in resisting c.200 units scheme on design and heritage grounds [Oct 2021]; for Chorley Council in securing policy compliant Affordable Housing and education contributions for large scale residential development [June 2021]; for Trafford Council in resisting urban extension on landscaping and viability grounds [Jan 2021]. He continues to act for Helioslough in respect of its proposals for a strategic rail freight interchange in Radlett. He acts for Crawley Council in the full range of matters relating to Gatwick, infrastructure and associated development. , for ; for Department of Education in securing permission for a new school in Gloucester (Dec 2018); for Crawley Council in several enforcement cases concerning off airport parking (Nov 2018); for County Council in resisting mineral extraction at Ware Park in Hertford (Oct 2018).
• He has previously acted in a number of major infrastructure inquiries and DCOs – Bathside Bay new port, Shellhaven new port; Able – Humber new port; Radlett Strategic Rail Freight Interchange; M25/A3 junction improvements (2021).

Examinations:

David promoted the Islington Local Plan and AAPs (Sept 2021). He is currently promoting the Old Trafford AAP (April 2022). He acted for developers successfully challenging the legality and soundness of the St Alban’s Local Plan.

Important cases include:

• R (Ocado) v Islington LBC [2021] – defending revocation of certificate of lawful use.
• R (Wasik) v Wealden [2021] – defending challenge to housing growth based on SPA/SAC grounds.
• West Berkshire v. Secretary of State [2016] 1 WLR 3923 (affordable housing policy consistency with statutory scheme).
• Smech v. Runneymede Borough Council [2016] JPL 677 (housing requirements and discretion).
• Gerber v. Wiltshire [2016] 1 WLR 2593 (leading case on delay in JR and discretion).
• St Albans City v. SoS [2015] EWHC 655 (Admin) – challenge to a grant of consent for a strategic rail freight interchange.

Recommendations:

• Legal 500, 2023: “David has the ability to find a new approach to an issue and to find a way through to the desired end, whilst keeping the team enthusiastic. He is exceptional at simultaneously being deeply involved in the detail of the case and seeing the bigger picture.”
• Chambers and Partners, 2022: “David is extremely accessible and very responsive. His strategic thinking on projects is invaluable.” “He provides sensible and pragmatic advice and has an easy manner.”
• Legal 500, 2022: “He is always all over the detail and his focus on legal and factual specifics is second to none.”
• Chambers and Partners, 2021: “He has a grasp of specialist technical evidence, which is fantastic, and he can present it in a coherent manner to the Inspector.” “Incredibly thorough in his approach and extremely well prepared when it comes to meeting clients”.
• Chambers and Partners, 2020: “He provides sensible and pragmatic advice and has an easy manner.” “He cuts to the chase and gives advice that is pragmatic and commercial.”
• Chambers and Partners, 2018: “Has taken on a number of eye-catching planning cases in recent years, engaging with both housing and infrastructure matters of national importance and novel construction. Instructing solicitors praise his comprehensive analysis and his ability to solve complex problems.” Very thorough and has a great deal of experience.” “He is a very worthy opponent, being very robust and tenacious. He is happy to run difficult points and has the strength of character to stand by them and often to win through.”
• Chambers and Partners, 2017: “Really frighteningly astute barrister”; “Absolutely first rate from a legal analysis point of view”.
• Chambers and Partners, 2016: “Produces fantastic written work and is really focussed”.

Compulsory Purchase and Compensation

David regularly advises and acts in relation to CPOs and has a particular specialism in substantial compensation claims and valuation issues having acted in a number of £multi-million claims in the last three years.

He acted for landowners objecting to the proposed CPO in relation to the Newport M4 Corridor; for a supermarket operator objecting to a highways CPO; and for a City Council in respect of implementation of a CPO. He advised objectors to the Ponders End and Brent X CPOs and appeared for Sainsbury’s in the Croydon CPO. He acted for the landowner in the challenge to the Swindon CPO and for the SoS in the defence of the Margate regeneration CPO: Margate Town Centre Regeneration Ltd v. Secretary of State [2013] EWCA Civ 1178.

Environment

David’s practice covers the full range of environmental law issues, often raising novel and important legal points and requiring detailed consideration of, and cross examination on, complex scientific material.

Recommendations:

• Legal 500, 2023: “He has a very good grasp of the legal, policy and guidance requirements relating to HSE and risk issues.”
• Chambers and Partners, 2022: “He is incredibly sharp in judicial reviews.” “He has a very good reputation – he is an unflappable public lawyer” “David is extremely accessible and very responsive. His strategic thinking on projects is invaluable.” “He provides sensible and pragmatic advice and has an easy manner.”
• Legal 500, 2022: “He is always all over the detail and his focus on legal and factual specifics is second to none.”Dave has a really broad and solid understanding of environmental law.”
• Chambers and Partners, 2021: “He has very good client-handling skills and gives very good and practical advice about applying the legal strategy” “He provides good, strategic advice and has excellent client handling skills.” “He’s always well prepared and knows how to pitch arguments.” “He has a grasp of specialist technical evidence, which is fantastic, and he can present it in a coherent manner to the Inspector.” “Incredibly thorough in his approach and extremely well prepared when it comes to meeting clients.”
• Chambers and Partners, 2018: “Sought out by government departments and key environmental NGOs and regulators…extensive experience in appearing before the Court of Appeal. He has encyclopaedic knowledge of the legislation around nature protection.”
• Who’s Who in the law: “a definite inclusion in any list”; “a fantastic talent”.

Notable cases include:

• Health and Safety Executive v Chester University [2020] – approach to risk management near a major hazard facility.
• R(Wasik) v Wealdon [2022]– approach to future modelling of pollution and housing development affecting Ashdown Forest SAC; R (Water UK) v EA (2022) – approach to use of biosolids in agriculture and impact on water pollution.
• R (Misbourne) v SST and HS2 [2022] – impact on water quality of tunnelling for HS2; R (RSPB) v Natural England – concerning conflict between hen harrier protection and grouse shooting (2021).
• R (Defra) v Greater Manchester/ Lancashire [2018] (JRs of withdrawal of funding for large waste PFIs).
• R (Holiday Extra) v Crawley BC (SEA of airport parking at Gatwick).
• R (Birchall Gardens) v. Hertfordshire County Council: EIA screening opinions and reasons for major waste facility).
• R (Seoint Anglers) v. Natural Resources Wales (concerning meaning of “environmental damage” under Environmental Damage Regulations).
• Re: Envirogreen (Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland on environmental permitting and relevance of previous conduct of licence holder).
• R (RSPB) v. SoS [2015] Env LR 24 (for RSPB in challenge to legality of a cull of a protected species).

He regularly advises NGOs and local authorities on the SPAs/SACs (Kent County Council, Herefordshire County Council, Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole); and is acting for the Royal Horticultural Society in respect of a major new road junction affecting an SPA/SAC near its Wisley HQ.

Public and Administrative

David’s public law practice is focused on environmental, planning and local government challenges. In addition to those core areas:

• He has appeared regularly in cases concerning the right to protest: for Sheffield City Council in the injunction claims concerning tree felling; for the City of London in City of London v. Samede – the St Paul’s occupy protest; for the Mayor of London in the Parliament Square protest camp case and Orchard – protest camp at Magna Carta.
• He has acted in several cases concerning the compatibility of legislation with the Human Rights Act – including Newhaven and Leeds on A1P1 and commons registration.
• He is acting for claimants in judicial review claims challenging the legality of imposition of retrospective taxation using the state error principle.
• He has acted for the Government in R (Harrow Community Support) v. Ministry of Defence [2012] EWHC 1921 (Admin) (Olympic security – “missiles on the roof” – article 8).
• He has acted for claimants in various art 14 discrimination relating to benefit entitlements.

Recommendations:

• Chambers and Partners, 2015: “He is very good… Very tenacious”.
• Chambers and Partners, 2014: “He is excellent”, “he’s thorough clear and helpful”. He “did extremely well in the High Court looking at the occupation by the camp outside St Paul’s,” and is also “very good at handling clients and meeting their expectations.”
• Chambers and Partners, 2012: “Wins acclaim for his work in the successful challenge to the government’s decision to support a third runway at Heathrow. He remains a favourite pick as counsel for judicial reviews concerning planning, the environment and local authorities”.

Local Authority

David acts for many of the major local authorities (City Councils, County Council and London authorities). His practice involves advising on, and appearing in cases concerning, local government powers, decision making, landholdings, revenue maximisation and reorganisation.

Recommendations:

• Legal 500, 2023: “David is a clear and forceful advocate and has a great ability to cut through detail and get to the heart of the legal issue. Clients appreciate his direct approach and strategic insights on the case.”
• Chambers and Partners, 2022: “He is incredibly sharp in judicial reviews.” “He has a very good reputation – he is an unflappable public lawyer”; “David really knows his stuff.”
• Legal 500, 2022: “David has a rare ability to cut through complex rating law questions and get to the crux of the issue at hand. Clients appreciate his clear, direct advice and his thorough grasp of the facts of the case which allow him to quickly respond on his feet.”
• Chambers and Partners, 2021: “He provides good, strategic advice and has excellent client handling skills.” “He’s always well prepared and knows how to pitch arguments.”
• Chambers and Partners, 2018: “Renowned local government silk with extensive expertise across a plethora of public and environmental law issues…. routinely acts as lead counsel for public authorities in high stakes vires disputes”.
• Chambers and Partners, 2016: “Really good at seeing the bigger picture”.
• Chambers and Partners, 2015: “He does very high quality cases and he does them well.” “He turns work round quickly and is very reliable”.

Notable work:

• David is currently acting for Cumbria County Council in its challenge to local government reorganisation (2022 – pending).
• For North East Lincolnshire in challenge to an arbitration award in respect of a proposed industrial estate [2022].
• For several business rate collection authorities in respect of rate mitigation schemes.
• For a consortium of authorities in seeking to enforce s.106 obligations in relation to delivery of a country park.
• For a council in seeking to impose a “roof tax” in a regeneration area.
• For a county council in the approach to an EFW application.
• For various authorities in seeking to overcome restrictive covenants.

He recently acted for Cheshire East in £multi-million claim related to rights to cross council land for development [2021/2]; for Islington in the first case on the revocation of CLEUDs for misinformation (2021) and on the challenge to PD rights for retail to residential (2021).

Rating and Valuation

In recent years, David has acted acts for ratepayers and local authorities on a number of high value and significant rating cases:

• He acted successfully for Exeter in the leading case on valuation of public buildings for rates purposes (2019) and continues to act for the landowner in the long running dispute on “Guardian” schemes – Ludgate House.
• He was advocate to the Supreme Court in the leading case of the identification of the hereditament (Woolway v. Mazars [2015]) and acted for a wide range of affected ratepayers in addressing the consequences of that decision.
• In 2016, he acted for the HMRC in two cases challenging the use of the contractor’s basis in the oil industry (Mainline and Total).

He has advised various farmers on agricultural exemptions and the owners of a large building in London on applicable exemptions. He is advising several authorities on maximising income from rates and the correct approach to rate mitigation schemes.

He has a particular expertise in valuation issues and regularly cross examines on viability appraisals in the planning and other contexts.

Recommendations:

• Legal 500, 2022: “David has a rare ability to cut through complex rating law questions and get to the crux of the issue at hand”.

Cross-practice

Landmark's barristers often work at the intersection of our core practice areas; bringing a wide range of skills, knowledge and experience to bear on a particular dispute or issue facing a client.

Our focus is always on achieving the best possible outcome for our client. By viewing the client's objectives in a holistic way - and not purely through the lens of one rigidly-defined legal area - we deliver the best possible advice and representation in complex matters that engage multiple specialist areas of law. 

Whether it's providing support as an individual cross-practice barrister or a cross-disciplinary team of Landmark counsel, we are able to draw on an outstanding array of complementary skillsets and knowledge bases. This often achieves a better result than instructing multiple barristers from different specialist sets. This also improves the quality of client care through increased levels of communication, quicker response times, and a coordinated approach to clerking and fees, made possible by our team-based cross-practice approach.

Please contact our practice management team for more information.

Energy

Local Government

Public Interest Litigation

Telecommunications