Community Infrastructure Levy
- Community Infrastructure Levy
- Compulsory Purchase and Compensation
- Criminal Planning Matters
- Development Contracts and Overage
- Development Plans and other planning policy
- Energy
- Environmental Impact Assessment
- Flooding and Drainage
- Fracking
- Highways, Footpaths and Rights of Way
- Infrastructure
- Landscape, Agriculture and Countryside
- Marine Planning and Harbour Orders
- Neighbourhood Planning
- Parliamentary Bills
- Planning Advice
- Planning Appeals, Inquiries and Hearings
- Planning Enforcement
- Planning Injunctions
- Planning Judicial and Statutory Reviews
- Section 106 Agreements and Enforcement
- Strategic Environmental Assessment
- State Aid and Procurement
- Transport Orders
- Village Greens, Commons and Manorial Rights
- Wildlife and Habitats
- Attorney General’s Panel of Counsel
Landmark barristers regularly advise local authorities and developers in connection with the Community Infrastructure Levy (“CIL”), including issues relating to exemption and relief entitlement, state aid, and liability.
Barristers frequently act in statutory appeals under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, and have appeared in a number of the most important judicial review cases concerning CIL including:
- R (Oates) v Wealden DC [2018] EWCA Civ 1304 (application of regulation 123);
- R (Orbital Shopping Parks Swindon) v Swindon BC [2016] P.T.S.R. 736 (challenge to liability notice);
- R (Fox Strategic Land and Property Ltd) v Chorley BC [2014] J.P.L. 1152 (challenge to the adoption of a CIL charging schedule).
Important issues on which Landmark’s barristers are often instructed to advise include:
- the interaction between CIL and section 106 planning obligations;
- the indexation of CIL where planning permission is amended;
- bringing forward a CIL Charging Schedule and getting it through an examination.
Landmark is also uniquely placed to give advice on CIL issues that raise questions of property law. For example, barristers have recently advised in relation to whether a series of property transactions are material disposals that disqualify a person from claiming “exceptional circumstances” relief under regulation 57.