Dan Kolinsky QC

Call: 1998Silk: 2015
Download CV

Practice Summary

Dan Kolinsky was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2015. He was a member of the Attorney General’s “A” Panel having also served on the B Panel and C Panel (appointed 2003). He sits as a Recorder (appointed 2018).

Dan’s practice covers planning, environmental, rating, local government and public law. He frequently acts as an advocate in the High Court and Court of Appeal, at public inquiries and before the Upper Tribunal. He has appeared as advocate in the Supreme Court.

His clients include central government, local government, developers, interest groups, ratepayers, individual claimants and NGOs.

He is also a CEDR accredited mediator.

Planning
Dan is an experienced planning inquiry advocate. He has extensive experience in High Court planning cases for claimants, developers, local and central government. He has particular expertise in regeneration projects in London and affordable housing viability. He accepts instructions on behalf of developers, local planning authorities, statutory bodies, local groups or any other participant in the planning process.

Environment
Dan has extensive experience of High Court challenges to complex environmental projects – acting for and against the decision making bodies.

Rating
Dan frequently appears in non-domestic rating cases acting for ratepayer, valuation officers and billing authorities. He has considerable experience in cases relating to whether the rating list entries are correct, exemption issues, completion notices, unoccupied rates disputes, valuation issues and collection/enforcement. He has appeared in 3 recent Supreme Court cases (Iceland, Monk and Woolway). He was made an honorary member of the Rating Surveyors’ Association in 2017.

Public Law and Local Government
Dan is an experienced public law practitioner acting in a wide range of areas including local government, regulatory law and social security. He advised the Airports Commission throughout its process.

Advocacy before Tribunals
Dan has extensive experience appearing in before the Upper Tribunal and first tier tribunals across a full range of areas including education, care standards and all aspects of social security law.

Planning

Inquiries

Dan represented the London Borough of Islington in the Parkhurst Road inquiry in which the Council successfully argued that the developer’s affordable housing offer was insufficient. This is a leading case on the approach to benchmark land value in affordable housing viability assessments. He also appeared for Islington in the successful defence of the developer’s High Court challenge to that decision [2018] EWHC 991 (Admin).

Appeared for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea at an inquiry into the proposed redevelopment of the William Sutton Housing Estate.

Appeared for the Mayor of London in the inquiry into the proposed SRFI at Howbury Park.

Knockholt Station yard – acted for waste transfer station successfully obtaining planning permission for the continued operation of a waste transfer station on a site within the green belt.

Pentonville Road – acted for LB Islington successfully opposing the redevelopment proposal on the grounds of its impact on neighbouring properties on daylight and sunlight grounds.

Former Moorfields School – acted for LB Islington successfully opposing a redevelopment proposal on grounds including its impact on the heritage asset, Bunhill Fields.

Cambridge Argos – secured consent for mezzanine expansion to out of centre store

Michael Shanly Homes – secured various consent for housing schemes, secured award of costs against local planning authority for seeking unreasonable s.106 contributions

Represented London Boroughs of Islington, Southwark, Lewisham, Lambeth, Waltham Forest, Hounslow, and Richmond at planning inquiries for mixed use schemes within London – examples include Canada Water site E and Mulberry Business Park (resisted mixed use schemes), 185 Park Street – resisted tall building adjacent to Tate Modern, resisted modification of s.106 agreement in respect of railway link bridge in Walthamstow, represented LB Islington in respect of redevelopment proposals in respect of the Turnmills site in Clerkenwell.

Recent experience of inquiries involving brownfield housing sites, listed building and conservation issues, affordable housing viability, noise, trees, contentious s.106 contributions, waste, sheltered housing for the elderly, student accommodation, country houses, telecommunications masts, enforcement, gypsy sites and travelling showmen’s winter quarters.

Strategic Advice

Dan has given strategic advice to the Mayor of London, LB Southwark and the government in respect of a number of high profile planning policy issues. He also advised the Airports Commission throughout its process from 2013 to its final report in 2015.

High Court Planning cases

R (Parkhurst Road Limited) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2018] EWHC 991 (Admin) – successfully acted for Islington in leading case on approach to benchmark land value in determining affordable housing viability.

Sharp v Environment Agency [2017] 1 WLR 3789 (CA) – acted for Environment Agency successful defence of a challenge to its exercise of powers of entry to undertake flood defence works.

Broadview Energy Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWCA Civ 562 – acting for the Secretary of State successfully defending apparent bias challenged based on contact between local MP and minister in parliament. The case gives leading guidance on how MPs should conduct themselves in lobbying on behalf of their constituents.

Aldergate Properties Ltd v Mansfield DC [2016] EWHC 1670 (Admin) – represented Claimant in successful judicial review challenge to the planning authority’s approach to the sequential test for retail development.

R. (on the application of Spitalfields Historic Trust Ltd) v Mayor of London[2016] EWHC 1006 (Admin) – acted for the Mayor of London in successful defence of the first challenge to the exercise of his powers to act as local planning authority.

R. (on the application of Nicholson) v Allerdale BC [2015] EWHC 2510 (Admin) – represented the Claimant in challenge to noise conditions imposed in motor sport testing planning permission.

R. (on the application of Powell) v Brighton Marina Co Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 650 acted for Defendants (led by Richard Drabble QC) successfully defending judicial review claim (at first instance and in the Court of Appeal) concerning the redevelopment of Brighton Marina.

Turner v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWCA Civ 582 – acting for the Secretary of State in his successful defence (at first instance and in the Court of Appeal) of challenge to the redevelopment of the Shell Centre which alleged apparent bias in the way that the planning Inspector had conducted the planning inquiry.

Ecotricity (Next Generation) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWCA Civ 657 – acting for the Secretary of State in successful defence of challenge to wind turbine development at first instance and in the Court of Appeal.

Battersea Park Action Group – represented residents group in judicial review challenge concerning the future of Formula E event at Battersea Park.

Arsenal Football Club Plc v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWHC 2620 (Admin) – represented Arsenal in High Court planning challenge relating to concerns at the Emirates Stadium.

R (on the application of Trashorfield Ltd) v Bristol City Council [2014] EWHC 757 (Admin) – represented for local action group challenging redevelopment of current Bristol Rovers stadium as supermarket.

R (Ashley) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2012] EWCA 559 – acted for the Claimant who succeeded in the Court of Appeal in contending that the planning Inspectorate had breached the principles of natural justice in determining a planning appeal by written representations in circumstances which gave him no opportunity to comment upon expert noise evidence which had been adduced by the developer.

R (Halebank Parish Council) v Halton Borough Council  [2012] EWHC 1889 – acting for the Parish Council in their successful judicial review challenge to Halton BC’s grant of planning permission for a large warehouse (for Amazon). The Parish Council also succeeded in their argument that they were entitled to a protective costs order in these proceedings.

R (Sellars) v Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council [2013] EWHC 5673 (Admin) – acted for claimants successfully challenging by way of judicial review the grant of a certificate of lawfulness in respect of the flying of model aircrafts.

Stadium Holdings (No 2) Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 3548 (Admin) – acted for the Claimant in its successful s.288 challenge to enforcement action against an advertising display.

Kensington and Chelsea RBC v of State for Communities and Local Government [2010] EWCA 1466 – acted for the developer who succeeded in the Court of Appeal in upholding an Inspector’s approach to viability in granting planning permission for residential development without a contribution to affordable housing. The Secretary of State had conceded the claim but the grant of planning permission was restored by the Court of Appeal.

Islington LBC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWHC (Admin) – acted for successful developer resisting challenge brought by the claimant to the grant of planning permission for the redevelopment of the public house, The Good Intent.

R (Gray) v LB Southwark  [2012] EWCA Civ 1738 – acted for Southwark in the High Court and Court of Appeal successfully resisting the claimant’s challenge to the grant of permission for the redevelopment of London Bridge station.

R (Godfrey) v LB Southwark [2012] EWCA 500  – acted for Southwark in the High Court and Court of Appeal to their successful defence of this challenge  to the redevelopment of a site at Canada Water. This is a leading case on the limited scope for legitimate expectations in planning cases.

Hertfordshire County Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2012] EWCA Civ 1473 acting for the Secretary of State in the Court of Appeal and High Court successfully defending the Inspector’s decision that there had been no breach of planning control due to the intensification of activity at a scrap yard.

Williams v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government  [2013] EWCA Civ 958 – acting for Secretary of State successfully defending in the Court of Appeal an Inspector’s decision requiring the demolition of an agricultural building erected in breach of planning control.

Aston v State for Communities and Local Government  [2013] EWHC 1936 – represented the Secretary of State successfully defending this s.288 challenge to the lawfulness of the EIA screening process and other grounds.

R (Ortona) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2009] EWCA Civ 863 [2010] 1 P&CR 15 – represented the successful claimant in the High Court and Court of Appeal proceedings of the s.288 claim quashing the Planning Inspector’s decision on grounds of apparent bias.

R (Rooff) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] EWCA 435 – represented the Secretary of State in the High Court and Court of Appeal in respect of this challenge under s.21 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 to the terms of the certificate of appropriate alternative development granted to the Claimant in respect of the acquisition of its site for the purposes of the 2012 Olympics.

R (Murrell) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2010] EWCA Civ 1367 – acted for the Secretary of State in the High Court and Court of Appeal in respect of this s.288 challenge to the refusal of prior approval for an agricultural building under the General Permitted Development Order. The case raises issues of importance in respect of the nature of permitted development rights.

R (Majed) v LB Camden [2010] J.P.L. 621 (CA) – represented the interested party who successfully opposed the quashing of planning permission despite an error by the council in the consultation process. This is a leading case on the scope for legitimate expectations arising from promises in statements of community involvement.

R (Aldergate Projects Ltd) v Nottinghamshire County Council [2009] JPL 939 – acted for successful Claimant quashing the County Council’s grant of planning permission to itself for the redevelopment of Mansfield bus station.

R. (on the application of Springhall) v Richmond upon Thames LBC [2007] 1 P. & C.R. 30 (CA) – represented the successful local planning authority in the High Court and Court of Appeal in this leading case on delegated decision making powers.

R. (on the application of Tratt) v Horsham DC [2007] EWHC 1485 (Admin) – represented the successful claimant in challenge quashing the council’s decision because of defective summary reasons for the grant of planning permission.

Roy Granville Thomas v Welsh Ministers [2009] EWHC 1734 (Admin)- represented the claimant in this successful s.288 challenge to quash the refusal of advertising consent.

R. (on the application of East Hertfordshire DC) v First Secretary of State [2007] EWHC 834 (Admin); [2007] J.P.L. 1304 – acted for Secretary of State in case concerning the scope of issue estoppels in planning enforcement cases.

R. (on the application of Pridmore) v Salisbury DC  [2005] 1 P. & C.R. 32 – represented the successful claimant in the judicial review to quash the grant of planning permission due to defects in the notification procedure.

R. (on the application of Chisnell) v Richmond upon Thames LBC  [2005] EWHC 134 (Admin); J.P.L. 2005, Aug, 1103-1105– represented the successful claimant in challenge quashing the council’s decision because of defective summary reasons for the grant of planning permission.

Harris v First Secretary of State [2007] EWHC 1847 (Admin); [2008] J.P.L. 538 – acted for Claimant in High Court challenge concerning the specific health impact of telecoms mast on a vulnerable claimant.

R. (on the application of Islington LBC) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2008] EWHC 1289 (Admin) – acted for LB Islington in its High Court challenge concerning the application by the Secretary of State of their affordable housing policy.

Nero Holdings v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2009] EWHC 749 (Admin) – represented Secretary of State in his successful defence of High Court challenge to decision to uphold an enforcement notice served on Café Nero due to breaches of Epping Forest District Council’s retail frontages policy.

MR Dean & Sons (Edgware) Ltd v First Secretary of State [2007] EWCA Civ 1083; [2008] A.C.D. 13 [2008] JPL 973 – represented the successful Secretary of State in the High Court and Court of Appeal (led by Nathalie Lieven QC) in case which gives guidance on decision making under PPS1 and the immateriality of the impact on ransom value in determining planning applications.

R. (on the application of Bedford) v Islington LBC [2003] Env LR 22 – acted for Arsenal FC in their successful defence of this High Court challenge to the planning permission granted for the Emirates stadium (led by Christopher Katkowski QC).

R. v Tower Hamlets LBC Ex p. Barratt Homes Ltd [2000] J.P.L. 1050 – High Court challenge to legality of affordable housing policy (led by Christopher Lockhart-Mummery QC and Christopher Katkowski QC).

Environment

Sharp v North Essex Magistrates Court and Environment Agency [2017] 1 WLR 3787 (CA) – represented the Environment Agency successfully defending a challenge to the exercise of its powers of entry to undertake floor defence works in the Court of Appeal and High Court.

R. (on the application of Powell) v Brighton Marina Co Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 650 acted for Defendants (led by Richard Drabble QC) successfully defending judicial review claim (at first instance and in the Court of Appeal) concerning the redevelopment of Brighton Marina.

Energie Est Lds v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2013] EWHC 3026 – acted for the Secretary of State successfully resisting the Claimant’s challenge to the decision that the Claimant’s product was certified under the Microgeneration Certification Scheme.

Aston v State for Communities and Local Government  [2013] EWHC 1936 – represented the Secretary of State successfully defending this s.288 challenge to the lawfulness of the EIA screening process and other grounds.

Hertfordshire County Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2012] EWCA Civ 1473 acting for the Secretary of State in the Court of Appeal and High Court successfully defending the Inspector’s decision that there had been no breach of planning control due to the intensification of activity at a scrap yard.

Ardley Against Incineration v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] EWHC 2230 – acted for the Secretary of State successfully resisting this challenge to the grant of planning permission for an energy for waste facility.

Coronation Power  v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] EWHC 2216 (Admin) – acted for the Secretary of State successfully defending the decision to refuse planning permission for wind turbines at a sensitive site in Cornwall.

Harrison v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2009] EWHC 3382 (Admin); [2010] Env. L.R. 17 – acted for the Secretary of State successfully resisting challenge to planning enforcement decision in the High Court. This case raised important issues in respect of the relationship between planning control and pollution control regimes.

Palm Developments v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2009] 2 P&CR 16 – acted for the successful Secretary of State defending this High Court challenge. This is the leading case on what constitutes a “tree” with the tree preservation order legislation.

R (Mageean) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2010] EWHC 2652 (Admin) and [2011] EWCA 863 – represented the Claimant in this s.288 claim in the High Court and Court of Appeal in this challenge to the Secretary of State’s grant of planning permission for a wind turbine. The claim was based on the failure to re-consider a screening direction that an environmental impact assessment was not required which had been made several years earlier and prior to the designation of a world heritage site in the locality of the proposed development.

R (Dry) v West Oxfordshire DC – High Court [2010] EWHC 1758 (Admin); Court of Appeal [2010] EWCA Civ 1143 – represented the Claimant  (instructed by Richard Buxton solicitors) in this challenge to the legality of the District Council’s grant of planning permission for 100 houses. The challenge focussed on the Council’s application of the sequential test in PPS 25 for allocating sites to the lowest area of flood and the Council’s environment impact assessments decision making process.

R (Lewes Friends of the Earth) v East Sussex CC [2009] Env LR 11 – acting for developer successful resisting this judicial review challenge into grant of planning permission for incinerator in Newhaven (led by David Holgate QC)

R. (on the application of Wandsworth LBC) v Secretary of State for Transport [2005] EWHC 20 (Admin); [2006] 1 E.G.L.R. 91 [2005] JPL 1635 – acted for partly successful claimants in challenge to the legality of the Civil Aviation White Paper (led by David Smith).

R. (on the application of Fisher) v English Nature [2005] 1 W.L.R. 147 – Court of Appeal decision relating to sites of scientific importance and their relationship with special protection areas under EU legislation (led by David Holgate QC).

R. (on the application of Little) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2002] EWHC 3001 (Admin) – acted for developers successfully defending  challenge to grant of planning permission for electricity generating station(led by Christopher Katkowski QC)

Rating

Iceland Food Ltd v Berry (VO) [2018] 1 WLR 1277 – represented Iceland in its challenge to the rateability of air handling plant. Dan represented Iceland throughout the proceedings including acting as advocate in its successful appeal in the Supreme Court.

Monk v Newbigin (VO) [2017] 1 W.L.R. 851 – represented the Rating Surveyors Association and British Property Federation in their successful intervention in support of the ratepayers appeal in the Supreme Court. The case concerned the valuation treatment of buildings undergoing refurbishment.

Woolway (Valuation Officer) v Mazars LLP [2015] UKSC 53 – represented the Valuation Officer (led by Tim Morshead QC) in seminal Supreme Court case on the identification of the hereditament in the rating list.

ATM rating test case – acting for Cardtronics Europe Limited in test case litigation concerning the rateability of ATMs in convenience stores (currently before the Court of Appeal).

UKI (Kingsway) Limited v Westminster City Council [2017] EWCA Civ 430 – acted for the successful ratepayer in Court of Appeal case determining that a completion notice had not been properly served by the billing authority.

Lamb v Go Outdoors Ltd [2015] UKUT 366 (LC) – represented Go Outdoors in valuation dispute before the Upper Tribunal.

Hardman v British Gas Trading Ltd [2015] UKUT 53 (LC) – acted for valuation officer (led by Tim Morshead QC) in case concerning valuation of power stations and the appropriate assumptions to make in respect of the hypothetical tenancy in the statutory rating hypothesis.

GPS (Great Britain) Ltd v Bird (VO) [2013] UKUT 527 (LC)  (also known as Fosse Park) – represented seven retailers who succeeded in their contention that the rateable value of their retail warehouses at Fosse Park should be reduced by 10% to reflect a material change of circumstances constituting the improvement to retail facilities in Leicester city centre when the Highcross extension opened.

Aviva Investment Properties v Whitby (VO) [2013] UKUT 430 (LC) – represented ratepayers who succeeded in contending that warehouse properties should be deleted from the rating list in the absence of the service of a completion notice as they were not capable of beneficial occupation.

Jamieson (VO) v Eon plc [2013] UKUT 369 (LC) – represented Eon plc who succeeded in its contention that Enfield power station and the pipeline serving it should be entered into the rating list as a single hereditament.

Esso v Walker (VO) [2013] UKUT 52 (LC) – represented the valuation officer in these proceedings concerning how a motor way service station should be entered in the rating list.

Kenya Aid Programme v Sheffield City Council [2013] 3 WLR 422 (DC) – represented the ratepayer charity in this leading Divisional Court case on charitable relief for occupied property.

Porter v Gladman (VO) [2011] UKUT 204 – represented the successful ratepayer in this leading case which decided that office premises could not be entered into the rating list without the service of a completion notice where they were not in a physical state that rendered them capable of beneficial occupation.

North Somerset Council v Honda Motor Europe Ltd and Martin Graham [2010] EWHC 1505 (QB) – represented the successful ratepayer, Mr Graham in his defence of this claim for the recovery of rates. This is the leading case on the circumstances in which a billing authority can recover rates where there have been delays in serving demand notices.

Harrods v Humphries (VO) (2013 VTE decision)– represented the successful valuation officer in the Valuation Tribunal proceedings relating to the correct rateable value of Harrods.

Gallagher (Valuation Officer) v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints [2008] 1 W.L.R. 1852 (HL)– acted for the Valuation Officer throughout this litigation which established that the Mormon Temple at Preston was not exempt from rates. Acted as advocate in the Lands Tribunal and Court of Appeal; led by Tim Mould QC in the House of Lords.

Leda Properties v Howells (VO) [2009] RA 165 – represented the Valuation Officer in the Lands Tribunal and successfully opposed the ratepayers’ appeal in respect of a proposal to delete the entry of a computer centre from the rating list on grounds of obsolescence.

Ebury (VO) v Central Methodist Church [2009] R.A. 239 – rateability case concerning whether a café and bookshop within church complex were exempt from rates as part of a church hall.

Tuplin (VO) v Cheetham [2010] R.A. 217 – acted for successful Valuation Officer in proceedings concerning whether DIY livery stables qualified for exemption from rates under the relevant agricultural exemption provisions.

Trunkfield (VO) v LB Camden [2010] UKUT 291 (LC) – acted for successful Valuation Officer in this case to determine whether adjoining offices should be entered on the rating list as a single hereditament or 2 separate hereditaments

Allen (VO) v Mansfield District Council [2008] RA 338 – acted for successful Valuation Officer in case relating to the rateability of district heating systems.

Selfridges Retail Ltd v Humphries (VO) [2010] R.A. 260 – acted for Valuation Officer in this case to determine the rateable value of Selfridges department store in Oxford Street (led by Tim Mould QC).

Harrods Ltd v Baker (Valuation Officer) [2007] R.A. 247 acted for Valuation Officer in this case to determine the rateable value of Harrods department store in Oxford Street (led by Tim Mould QC).

Tully v Jorgensen (Valuation Officer) [2003] R.A. 233 – acted for successful ratepayer in this test case on the rateability of home offices.

Public law

Broadview Energy Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWCA Civ 562 – acting for the Secretary of State successfully defending apparent bias challenged based on contact between local MP and minister in parliament. The case gives leading guidance on how MPs should conduct themselves in lobbying on behalf of their constituents.

Turner v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWCA Civ 582 – acting for the Secretary of State in his successful defence (at first instance and in the Court of Appeal) of challenge to the redevelopment of the Shell Centre which alleged apparent bias in the way that the planning Inspector had conducted the planning inquiry.

Sanders v Airports Commission [2013] EWHC 3754 (Admin) – represented for the Airports Commission in its successful defence of this judicial review claim brought on behalf of Stop Stansted expansion contending that the Airports Commission’s process had been tainted by apparent bias.

Energie Est Lds v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2013] EWHC 3026 – acted for the Secretary of State successfully resisting the Claimant’s challenge to the decision that the Claimant’s product was certified under the Microgeneration Certification Scheme.

Rowley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2007] 1 W.L.R. 2861 – acted for Secretary of State in leading case establishing that the Child Support Agency does not owe a duty of care so as to give rise to negligence liability in respect of the assessment or enforcement of child support maintenance (led by Nigel Giffin QC).

Rhondda Cynon Taff CBC v Watkins [2003] 1 W.L.R. 1864 –  acted for Council in this Court of Appeal case regarding the raising of public law defences and the process of acquiring land compulsorily (led by Joseph Harper QC)

Gorlov v Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales [2002] EWHC 2202 (Admin); [2003] A.C.D. 1 – acted for claimant in this challenge to the ICA’s conduct of disciplinary proceedings (led by Joseph Harper QC)

R. (on the application of Mooney) v Southwark LBC [2006] EWHC 1912 (Admin); (2006) 9 C.C.L. Rep. 670– acted for claimant in community care judicial review.

Local Government

R (Luton BC and others) v Secretary of State for Education [2011] EWHC 217 (Admin)– acted for Luton BC and Nottingham City Council in their successful judicial review challenges to the withdrawal of funding for BSF (Building Schools for the Future) projects (led by Richard Drabble QC)

Basey v Oxford City Council [2012] EWCA Civ 115 – represented the successful claimant in the Upper Tribunal and Court of Appeal in this leading case on the meaning of sheltered accommodation within the housing benefit regulations (instructed by the Child Poverty Action Group).

North Somerset Council v Honda Motor Europe Limited and others [2010] EWHC 1505 (QB); [2010] R.A. 285 – represented Martin Graham one of the Defendants in this test case on the recoverability of non-domestic rates where there had been delays in their enforcement by the billing authority. This was a test case heard in the High Court over 7 days. Mr Graham’s case succeeded and the judge ruled that none of the rates at issue were recoverable from him. The case gives guidance on the approach to prejudice in cases of attempted recovery by billing authorities who have not acted promptly.

Chilton Merryweather (VO) v Hunt and others [2009] Env LR 16; [2008] RA 357 – acted for listing officer in his successful appeal to the Court of Appeal in respect of grounds for review of council tax bands (led by Tim Mould QC).

R (Bridgnorth District Council) v Secretary of State for Social Security  (led by Richard Drabble QC) acted for successful Claimants who challenged the legality of the Secretary of State’s approach to the recovery of overpaid housing benefit subsidy. The claim was conceded by the Secretary of State during the High Court proceedings and a new policy subsequently published. I acted (also with Richard Drabble QC) in the subsequent litigation in R. (on the application of Isle of Anglesey CC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2003] EWHC 2518 (Admin); [2004] B.L.G.R. 614 and R. (on the application of Lambeth LBC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] EWHC 637; [2005] B.L.G.R. 764.

Durham CC v Darlington BC [2003] EWHC 2598; [2004] B.L.G.R. 311 – acted for Darlington Borough Council in these High Court proceedings relating to the challenge to the arbitrator’s award made in their favour following an arbitration to determine unresolved financial and property consequences of this local government reorganisation.

Social Security

Basey v Oxford City Council [2012] EWCA Civ 115 – represented the successful claimant in the Upper Tribunal and Court of Appeal in this leading case on the meaning of sheltered accommodation within the housing benefit regulations (instructed by the Child Poverty Action Group).

M v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions  [2006] 2 A.C. 91 – acted for Secretary of State in House of Lords proceedings concerning alleged discrimination against same sex couples in the application of aspects of the child support maintenance formula (led by Philip Sales QC).

Hinchy v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions  [2005] 1 W.L.R. 967 – acted for Secretary of State in his successful appeal to the House of Lords in respect of the recovery of overpaid benefits (led by Richard Drabble QC).

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Yates [2009] EWCA Civ 479; [2009] Pens LR 217 – acted for Secretary of State in his successful appeal to the Court of Appeal concerning the uprating of pensions paid to persons abroad.

Moyna v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2003] 1 W.L.R. 1929– acted for Claimant in House of Lords case relating to the “cooking test” for lower rate disability living allowance care component. This is a leading case on the scope for review of tribunals in social security cases. (led by Richard Drabble QC in the House of Lords proceedings).

Campbell v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] EWCA Civ 989 – Court of Appeal case concerning absence of appeal rights for incapacity appeals under international arrangements with Jamaica (led by Richard Drabble QC).

R. (on the application of Steele) v Birmingham City Council [2006] 1 W.L.R. 2380 (CA) and R(Balding) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008] 1 W.L.R. 564 (CA) – acted for the Secretary of State in this pair of cases relating to the relationship between bankruptcy and the recovery of overpaid benefit.

R. (on the application of Barber) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2002] EWHC 1915 (Admin); [2002] 2 F.L.R. 1181 – acted for Claimant in challenge relating to child benefit in shared care arrangements (led by Richard Drabble QC).

Appeared in the following Court of Appeal cases relating to social security:-

  • Batty v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] EWCA Civ 1746 (acting for Claimant)
  • Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Miah [2003] 4 All E.R. 702 (CA) (acting for Claimant)
  • Tula Miah v The Secretary of State for Social Security [2002] EWCA Civ 592(acting for Claimant)
  • Casewell v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008] EWCA Civ 524; [2008] 11 CCL Rep 684 (acting for Claimant)
  • Fryer-Kelsey v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] EWCA Civ 511 (for Secretary of State)
  • Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Menary-Smith [2006] EWCA Civ 1751 (for Secretary of State)

Human Rights

M v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions  [2006] 2 A.C. 91 – acted for Secretary of State in this House of Lords case concerning approach to ambit and article 8 (concerned challenge to the treatments of same sex relationship within child support formula) (led by Philip Sales QC)

J. M. v. UK (Application no. 37060/06) – acted for UK government in these Strasbourg proceedings following the decision of the House of Lords in M v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions  [2006] 2 A.C. 91

Gallagher (Valuation Officer) v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints [2008] 1 W.L.R. 1852 (HL) – acted for the Valuation Officer in case concerning challenge by Mormon Church to imposition of tax (non-domestic rates) on the Mormon Temple at Preston (led Tim Mould QC).

Francis v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2006] 1 W.L.R. 3202 (CA) – represented Secretary of State in this Court of Appeal case relating to an article 14 challenge relating to entitled to social security benefit in the form of a maternity grant under the Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Regulations 1987 Reg.5.

Bexley LBC v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] EWHC Admin 323; [2001] J.P.L. 1442 (Note) – human rights challenge to legality of CPO (led by Chrisopher Lockhart-Mummery QC)

R. (on the application of Friends Provident Life Office) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions  [2002] 1 W.L.R. 1450 – human rights challenge to local authority decision making establishes objectors to planning process have their article 6 rights engaged (led by Christopher Katkowski QC).

Tonbridge and Malling BC v Davis [2004] EWCA Civ 194 – acted for travelling showmen in human rights challenged to the grant of an injunction against them for breaches of planning control (led by Richard Drabble QC).

Other

Other notable cases include:

Alcoa Minerals of Jamaica Inc v Broderick [2002] 1 A.C. 371 (Privy Council) – acted for claimant in these proceedings relating to the mitigation and the assessment of damages (on appeal to the Privy Council from the Court of Appeal of Jamaica) (led by John Cherryman QC).

Qualifications

Dan graduated from Wadham College, Oxford with a first class degree in jurisprudence.

Before coming to the Bar, he taught contract law at Queen Mary and Westfield College and Mansfield College, Oxford and completed 2-year training contract at Anthony Gold Solicitors. He has also been a Judicial Assistant to the Court of Appeal.

He has written and given lectures on a range of topics in the fields of public law, local government, planning, environmental, special educational needs and non-domestic rates.

He was a governor of Forest Gate Community School for ten years (2002-2012). He became a Director of BMAT (a small confederation of state schools based in Essex and East London) in 2013. He became Chair of the  BMAT Trust Board in January 2018.

Recommendations

Dan has been consistently recommended as a leading practitioner in the legal directories in the areas of his practice – planning , local government, environment and public law. He also regularly features in the annual survey of the legal professional conducted by Planning Magazine.

Endorsements from current editions of the legal directories include:

“He is an extremely talented junior QC, who is very astute, articulate and knowledgeable.”
“He’s absolutely excellent on complex matters with multiple issues and witnesses. Great with local authorities and very good on important viability cases, he inspires confidence.”
‘Personable and hardworking.’
“He’s very impressive in terms of his advocacy.”
(Chambers & Partners (2018)– planning and local government; Legal 500 (2018) environment, planning and property)

2017
“A brilliant advocate who is assertive in court without coming across as difficult. He is extremely approachable and very down-to-earth”.
“Exceptionally talented advocate and a master of detail. He is extremely practical and works exceptionally well with retail clients. His unfussy and clear approach is appreciated by clients and those instructing in equal measure.” (Chambers &  Partners, 2017 planning)
“He is very personable, efficient and, in terms of drafting, he delivers very quickly.” “He is reliable and has a good rapport with clients.” (Chambers & Partners, 2017 local government)
“Considerably experienced in High Court planning disputes.” (Legal 500; planning)

2016
“enthusiastic, down-to-earth and a forceful advocate.” “fantastic grip of the detail” “client-friendly approach (Chambers and Partners 2016 administrative and public law)
“very hands-on approach” “dealt with technical matters in a very clear and concise way”. “very composed and authoritative” “very good to work with.” (Chambers and Partners 2016, local government)
“very good at thinking on his feet.” “very approachable, constructive and pleasant to deal with.” (Chambers and Partners 2016, planning)
‘Intellectually strong and very user-friendly” (recommended in Legal 500 for Administrative (including Local Government), Planning and Environment)

2015
“He relates to clients really well. He explains what is going to happen and what it means for them. In court he is very persuasive.” (Chambers and Partners (2015) Admin and Public Law)
“Straightforward, very thorough and someone who takes a very sensible and logical approach.” “Has an ability to think on his feet, combined with great judgement.” (Chambers and Partners (2015) Local Government)
“He is always totally prepared, gives commercially astute and succinct advice, and can always be relied on. Clients love him.” “His pleadings, advocacy and opinions are of exceptional quality. He is a real team player, and a firm favourite of clients and instructing solicitors who favour pragmatic solutions.” (Chambers and Partners (2015) Planning)
“Provides very well thought out and helpful advice.” (2015 Legal 500 – Administrative Law)
“Adept at getting to the nub of an issue.” (2015 Legal 500 – Environment)
“An extremely versatile lawyer.” (2015 Legal 500 – Planning)

2014
“very thorough and deals with difficult cases with good humour” (Chambers and Partners 2014 for  local government and administrative law)
“He is highly intelligent, diligent, helpful and reliable” (Chambers and Partners 2014, planning).
“bright and approachable” ; a “standout” junior (Legal 500; public law)

2013
“”a first port of call” for “heavyweight,” high-value matters in planning” (Chambers and Partners 2013 – local government)
“a junior of choice, “particularly for a planning judicial review.”” (Chambers and Partners 2013 – public law)
“”very bright”  “a favourite of solicitors due to his “straightforward, down-to-earth approach.””  (Chambers and Partners 2013; planning)

2012
“Standout junior” with “enviable reputation for his local government and general public law work”; “brilliant to deal with,” sources highlight his “ability to cut through the detail and get to the heart of a case” “thorough and reliable in all he does.” (Chambers and Partners 2012 – local government)
“great potential” “A fine performer with excellent judgement,” (Chambers and Partners 2012 – planning)
“ regularly undertakes judicial review work, acting for claimants, local and central government, and pressure groups” (Chambers and Partners 2012 – public law).

2011
“The “clever and meticulous” Dan Kolinsky has a busy public law practice alongside his mainstream planning and environment practice” (C&P public).
“extremely bright and a joy to work with” ”commended for his work on rating, planning inquiries and planning and environmental judicial reviews. (C&P local government)
Known for “rolling his sleeves up and getting on with it”  (C&P planning)
Ranked in Legal 500 for administrative law, planning and environment, comments: “quite frankly is excellent. It is the lack of airs and graces, and the fact that he is so down to earth that makes him a pleasure to work with”.

2010
“combines tenacity and a winning mentality with a pleasant manner, and his areas of expertise include planning and local government”. (C&P  public)
“Although the set is primarily recognised for its dominance in planning it has a number of extremely able barristers who take on a variety of local government work. The “very thorough” Daniel Kolinsky is one such name”; “ He is highly sought after “ (C&P Local Government)
“incredibly bright and thorough with a great sense of humour – he’s doing very strong work at the set.”  (C&P planning)
Ranked in Legal 500 for administrative law, planning and environment – described as “bright and articulate advocate and draftsman”

2009 
admired for “never giving up and working incredibly hard to find the killer point in any case.” A talented advocate, he is respected for his “formidable intellect and nice manner in court.” (C&P public)
“A veritable star of the local government scene “a good example of this set’s talented juniors”. His practice focuses on planning but he also advises on a range of other matters including local government reorganisation, finance and vires, rating and social security (C&P local government)
“thorough and responsive” “highly regarded for his public law expertise” (C&P planning).

2008 
“practice involves acting for all sides in judicial review proceedings” (C&P public law)
“an incredible intellect and judgement to match” “without a doubt, the man you want if you have a tricky case” (C&P local government)
“a sharp and switched on team player who is incredibly reliable” (C&P planning)

2007
“an excellent advocate” “really a pleasure to work with” (C&P public law)
“wildly intelligent” “high flyer” (C&P local government)
“incredibly thorough and astute” “juggles inquiry and court appearances” (C&P planning)

2006
“truly excellent” “brilliant advocate” (C&P public law)
“a delight to work with”, “clients appreciate his accomplished manner in the courtroom” (C&P planning)
“high flyer”; “good with clients and does not miss a trick” (C&P local government)

2005
“Accomplished and pleasant to work with” “known for his High Court challenges” (C&P planning)
“extremely helpful and bright” “building a varied public law practice” (C&P public law),
“absolutely superb” “ability to handle highly complex and technical cases coupled with a pleasant, capable manner” “favourite with solicitors” (C&P local government)

2003/04
“rapidly growing profile” (C&P local government); “
“unbelievably mature intellect as well as possessing the common touch” (C&P planning)

2002/03
“Team player” “Extremely able but wears it lightly” (C&P planning)

Inquiries

Parkhurst Road Appeal Decision on Benchmark Land Value

22/06/2017

A planning Inspector has upheld the London Borough of Islington’s refusal of planning permission for the redevelopment of the former Territorial Army site on Parkhurst Road due to insufficient affordable housing.

The decision emphasises the importance that the benchmark land value used in the viability assessment should reflect planning policy requirements.

The Inspector also upheld Islington’s contention that an advance stage viability review was required in order to maximise the amount of affordable housing provided.

Dan Kolinsky QC acted for the London Borough of Islington.  Russell HarrIs QC acted for the developer, Parkhurst Road Limited.

 

:

Inquiries

Pentonville Road

15/01/2014

Acted for LB Islington successfully opposing the redevelopment proposal on the grounds of its impact on neighbouring properties on daylight and sunlight grounds.

:

Inquiries

Knockholt Station yard

19/11/2013

Acted for waste transfer station successfully obtaining planning permission for the continued operation of a waste transfer station on a site within the green belt.

:

Inquiries

Former Moorfields School

11/05/2012

Acted for LB Islington successfully opposing a redevelopment proposal on grounds including its impact on the heritage asset, Bunhill Fields.

:

Inquiries

Camberwell Green (2011)

26/04/2011

Acting for LB Southwark – successfully opposing a major redevelopment proposal adjoining Camberwell Green.

:

Inquiries

The Turnmills (2010)

20/05/2010

Acted for LB Islington at appeal successfully opposing a scheme for the redevelopment of the Turnmills in Clerkenwell.

:

Inquiries

Barnsbury Square, Islington (public inquiry)

12/05/2008

Represented the London Borough of Islington at this inquiry which raised issues as to the threshold for affordable housing provision and whether it was permissible to look behind a scheme which presents as being below the number of dwelling at which a contribution for affordable housing is sought and examine the capacity of the proposal.

:

Inquiries

Circle Anglia site in Great Shelford (public inquiry)

29/02/2008

Representing South Cambridgeshire District Council opposing a development for an affordable housing scheme promoted as a rural exemption site in the green belt. The case raises issues about affordable housing need and green belt issues.

:

Inquiries

Local government reorganisation advice

01/01/2008

I advised a local authority (identity is confidential) in relation to potential claims against an adjoining authority arising out of a recent local authority reorganisation. Instructed by Anna Forge at Mcgrigors with whom I have previously worked in relation to successful arbitration proceedings arising out of local government reorganisation.

:

Inquiries

Regeneration advice and procurement

01/01/2008

I am instructed to advise a London Borough (identity is confidential) in respect of proposed regeneration work and the potential implications of the ECJ decision in

Auroux v Roanneso far as procurement requirements are concerned.

:

Inquiries

Charging for services

01/01/2008

I have advised several clients (including Vale of White Horse District Council) in respect of the extent of their powers to charge for discretionary services. (Please keep the identity of this specific client confidential).

 

:

Inquiries

George Superbikes Swindon (public inquiry)

02/12/2007

Acted for the developer and secured planning permission for a residential development on brownfield land at Swindon. The case involved contested viability evidence in which the developer resisted the s.106 contributions and affordable housing contributions sought by the council on the grounds that the scheme would not be viable if such requirements were imposed.

The case also included issues about design and whether a residential only scheme was acceptable in the location proposed.

:

Inquiries

185 Park Street (public inquiry)

13/03/2007

Represented the London Borough of Southwark at this public inquiry into a proposed tall building (mixed residential and commercial) adjacent to the Tate Modern Building. Successfully resisted the proposal on the basis of amongst other things an adverse impact on the Tate Modern Building from the Millennium Bridge.

:

Inquiries

Dudley Brierley Hill CPO modified to accommodate Corus objection

03/08/2006

The Secretary of State confirmed the Dudley Brierley Hill CPO with modifications to protect Corus’ interests in premises close to Merry Hill.

David Elvin QC and Dan Kolinsky advised Corus.

:

Inquiries

Michael Shanly Homes, St Marks Road, Maidenhead (public inquiry)

24/01/2006

Example of my inquiry work for developers. Secured a planning consent for a 15 property scheme in a backland setting in Maidenhead. The scheme is now being built.

:

Inquiries

Bell Green (2006)

01/01/2006

Represented Castlemore Securities at inquiry for retail and mixed use scheme on former gas works (with Christopher Lockhart-Mummery QC).

:

Inquiries

Cambridge Argos (2006)

01/01/2006

Successfully represented the Argos Group plc at a public inquiry for planning permission for a mezzanine extension to their out of centre Cambridge store.

:

Inquiries

Croydon Park Place CPO (2006)

01/01/2006

Represented the acquiring authority and Minerva plc at CPO inquiry into large retail scheme (with Bill Hicks QC)

:

Inquiries

Canada Water site E and Mulberry Business Park (2005)

01/01/2005

Successfully represented London Borough of Southwark in 2 separate inquiries opposing large scale mixed use scheme. In each case, the developers were represented by leading silks.

:

Inquiries

Hearing for judicial review of Airports White Paper

13/12/2004

Richard Drabble QC, Tim Mould and Carine Patry act for the Government.

 

David Smith and Dan Kolinsky act for the London Borough of Wandsworth, the London Borough of Hillingdon and three local interest groups.

 

As “The Lawyer” noted on 13 September,

 

“Landmark Chambers and 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square have monopolised the case, which is set down for six days in December in the High Court.”

 

www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=111937&d=11&h=24&f=23

:

Inquiries

Parkhurst Road Appeal Decision on Benchmark Land Value

22/06/2017

A planning Inspector has upheld the London Borough of Islington’s refusal of planning permission for the redevelopment of the former Territorial Army site on Parkhurst Road due to insufficient affordable housing.

The decision emphasises the importance that the benchmark land value used in the viability assessment should reflect planning policy requirements.

The Inspector also upheld Islington’s contention that an advance stage viability review was required in order to maximise the amount of affordable housing provided.

Dan Kolinsky QC acted for the London Borough of Islington.  Russell HarrIs QC acted for the developer, Parkhurst Road Limited.

 

:

Inquiries

Pentonville Road

15/01/2014

Acted for LB Islington successfully opposing the redevelopment proposal on the grounds of its impact on neighbouring properties on daylight and sunlight grounds.

:

Inquiries

Knockholt Station yard

19/11/2013

Acted for waste transfer station successfully obtaining planning permission for the continued operation of a waste transfer station on a site within the green belt.

:

Inquiries

Former Moorfields School

11/05/2012

Acted for LB Islington successfully opposing a redevelopment proposal on grounds including its impact on the heritage asset, Bunhill Fields.

:

Inquiries

Camberwell Green (2011)

26/04/2011

Acting for LB Southwark – successfully opposing a major redevelopment proposal adjoining Camberwell Green.

:

Inquiries

The Turnmills (2010)

20/05/2010

Acted for LB Islington at appeal successfully opposing a scheme for the redevelopment of the Turnmills in Clerkenwell.

:

Inquiries

Barnsbury Square, Islington (public inquiry)

12/05/2008

Represented the London Borough of Islington at this inquiry which raised issues as to the threshold for affordable housing provision and whether it was permissible to look behind a scheme which presents as being below the number of dwelling at which a contribution for affordable housing is sought and examine the capacity of the proposal.

:

Inquiries

Circle Anglia site in Great Shelford (public inquiry)

29/02/2008

Representing South Cambridgeshire District Council opposing a development for an affordable housing scheme promoted as a rural exemption site in the green belt. The case raises issues about affordable housing need and green belt issues.

:

Inquiries

Local government reorganisation advice

01/01/2008

I advised a local authority (identity is confidential) in relation to potential claims against an adjoining authority arising out of a recent local authority reorganisation. Instructed by Anna Forge at Mcgrigors with whom I have previously worked in relation to successful arbitration proceedings arising out of local government reorganisation.

:

Inquiries

Regeneration advice and procurement

01/01/2008

I am instructed to advise a London Borough (identity is confidential) in respect of proposed regeneration work and the potential implications of the ECJ decision in

Auroux v Roanneso far as procurement requirements are concerned.

:

Inquiries

Charging for services

01/01/2008

I have advised several clients (including Vale of White Horse District Council) in respect of the extent of their powers to charge for discretionary services. (Please keep the identity of this specific client confidential).

 

:

Inquiries

George Superbikes Swindon (public inquiry)

02/12/2007

Acted for the developer and secured planning permission for a residential development on brownfield land at Swindon. The case involved contested viability evidence in which the developer resisted the s.106 contributions and affordable housing contributions sought by the council on the grounds that the scheme would not be viable if such requirements were imposed.

The case also included issues about design and whether a residential only scheme was acceptable in the location proposed.

:

Inquiries

185 Park Street (public inquiry)

13/03/2007

Represented the London Borough of Southwark at this public inquiry into a proposed tall building (mixed residential and commercial) adjacent to the Tate Modern Building. Successfully resisted the proposal on the basis of amongst other things an adverse impact on the Tate Modern Building from the Millennium Bridge.

:

Inquiries

Dudley Brierley Hill CPO modified to accommodate Corus objection

03/08/2006

The Secretary of State confirmed the Dudley Brierley Hill CPO with modifications to protect Corus’ interests in premises close to Merry Hill.

David Elvin QC and Dan Kolinsky advised Corus.

:

Inquiries

Michael Shanly Homes, St Marks Road, Maidenhead (public inquiry)

24/01/2006

Example of my inquiry work for developers. Secured a planning consent for a 15 property scheme in a backland setting in Maidenhead. The scheme is now being built.

:

Inquiries

Bell Green (2006)

01/01/2006

Represented Castlemore Securities at inquiry for retail and mixed use scheme on former gas works (with Christopher Lockhart-Mummery QC).

:

Inquiries

Cambridge Argos (2006)

01/01/2006

Successfully represented the Argos Group plc at a public inquiry for planning permission for a mezzanine extension to their out of centre Cambridge store.

:

Inquiries

Croydon Park Place CPO (2006)

01/01/2006

Represented the acquiring authority and Minerva plc at CPO inquiry into large retail scheme (with Bill Hicks QC)

:

Inquiries

Canada Water site E and Mulberry Business Park (2005)

01/01/2005

Successfully represented London Borough of Southwark in 2 separate inquiries opposing large scale mixed use scheme. In each case, the developers were represented by leading silks.

:

Inquiries

Hearing for judicial review of Airports White Paper

13/12/2004

Richard Drabble QC, Tim Mould and Carine Patry act for the Government.

 

David Smith and Dan Kolinsky act for the London Borough of Wandsworth, the London Borough of Hillingdon and three local interest groups.

 

As “The Lawyer” noted on 13 September,

 

“Landmark Chambers and 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square have monopolised the case, which is set down for six days in December in the High Court.”

 

www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=111937&d=11&h=24&f=23

:
icon-accordion-chevron icon-arrow-left icon-arrow-right icon-chevron-down icon-chevron-left icon-cross icon-download icon-letter icon-linked-in icon-phone-outline icon-phone icon-search icon-search icon-select-chevron icon-top-right-corner icon-twitter