David Forsdick QC

Call: 1993Silk: 2014
Download CV

Practice Summary

David took silk in 2014 having been on the A Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown since 2005. He specialises in environmental, planning, local authority and public law. In 2016 his primarily Court based practice featured a number of leading cases in the Court of Appeal and he was shortlisted for the 2016 Chambers UK Environment and Planning Silk of the Year.

David’s clients include major players in his areas of expertise:

  • Central Government (including DEFRA, DCLG, HMRC, the HSE, the Environment Agency and Natural England);
  • Local Government (including Westminster, Tower Hamlets, the City of London, the GLA, Islington, Trafford, Milton Keynes, Hertfordshire, Bristol and BANES);
  • Major landowners and developers; and
  • NGOs (including the RSPB and Wildlife Trusts).

Environment

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

Recommendations: C&P 2016 – “hugely impressive… presented the case really forcefully and clearly to the Court. He really focused on the key issues”; C&P 2015 – “thorough, detailed, bright and pleasant to deal with”; C&P 2014 – “he as a strong reputation amongst his peers at the Bar who note his abilities as a cross-examiner and his excellent command of detail.” Who’s Who 2016: “a definite inclusion in any list”. Who’s Who 2015 “a fantastic talent”.

Recent important cases include:  R (Holiday Extra) v Crawley BC [2016] EWHC 3247 (Admin) (SEA of airport parking at Gatwick); R (Birchall Gardens) v. Hertfordshire County Council [2016] EWHC 2794 (Admin) (EIA screening opinions and reasons for major waste facility); R (Seoint Anglers) v. Natural Resources Wales [2017] Env LR 2 (concerning meaning of “environmental damage” under Environmental Damage Regulations); Re: Envirogreen [2016] NICA 32 (Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland on environmental permitting and relevance of previous conduct of licence holder); and R (RSPB) v. SoS [2015] Env LR 24 (for RSPB in challenge to legality of a cull of a protected species). He acted for a consortium of local authorities and NGOs in the last challenge to a third runway at Heathrow – Hillingdon v. Secretary of State [2010] JPL 976 on air quality, noise and climate change grounds.

Planning

David regularly appears in planning related challenges in the Courts, and has a wide-ranging planning practice covering infrastructure and housing.

Recommendations: C&P 2017 – “has taken on a number of eye-catching planning cases in recent years, engaging with both housing and infrastructure matters of national importance”; “really frighteningly astute barrister” “Absolutely first rate from a legal analysis point of view”; C&P 2016 – “produces fantastic written work and is really focussed”; C&P 2014 – “he is very quick wading through a mountain of material and then presenting it in written form succinctly. He is so focussed, intelligent, sharp and responsive and is very practical”

Recent important cases include 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 and R(Smith) v. Warwickshire County Council  [2016]  – policy for location of emergency stopping places for gyspies and travellers.

David acted for Bath and North East Somerset in its Core Strategy examination (housing land supply) and the subsequent PMP. He acted for the RSPB in the Able Humber Port DCO and in all the earlier port inquiries.

David is advising a number of authorities and developers in respect of major urban extensions and in particular CIL and S.106 requirements/conditions. He acted for Milton Keynes in respect of an attempt to challenge permission for a major urban extension raising equalisation issues and is currently acting for Trafford in respect of the conditions on a 3000 house scheme at Trafford Water and for a landowner in respect of a £multi-million disputed s.106 obligation.

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. For his Local Government CV please click here.

Recommendations: C&P 2017 – “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”; C&P 2016 – “really good at seeing the bigger picture”; C&P 2015 – “he does very high quality cases and he does them well.” “He turns work round quickly and is very reliable”

Recent Work:  in addition to the local government- related cases listed above, David’s recent work  includes: R(Morell) v Taunton Dean Borough Council [2016] – pending JR of proposals to merge the Council with adjoining council; R(Lancshire CC) v DEFRA  pending JR of withdrawal of £multi-million waste infrastructure credit from major PFI project; advising a London Borough on the legality of  call ins of major planning application by the Mayor of London;  legality of article 4 direction by a city council restricting PD rights; and the correct approach to appropriation of land and rights to light.   He acted for claimants in the challenge to the Garden Bridge.

Other Public Law including human rights

David’s public law practice is focussed 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 the City of London in City of London v. Samede – the St Paul’s occupy protest; and Mayor of London v Hall   – the Parliament Square protest camp and most recently 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; and
  • He is currently acting for the claimant in the first challenge to retrospective taxation using the state error principle;
  • He 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); and
  • Has acted for claimants in various art 14 discrimination relating to benefit entitlements.

Recommendations: C&P 2015  – “He is very good…. Very tenacious”; C&P 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.” C&P 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”.

CPO, Compensation and Valuation

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 is acting for landowners in respect of the proposed CPO in relation to the Newport M4 Corridor; and a City Council in respect of implementation of a CPO. He recently 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.

Rating and Valuation

In recent years, David has acted acts for the HMRC and ratepayers on a number of high value and significant rating cases. He was advocate to the Supreme Court in the leading case of the identification of the hereditament (Woolway v. Mazars  [2015]) and is acting 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); is currently advising 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 acted for a ratepayer in liability order proceedings arising from empty property provisions.

Qualifications

A Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown – appointed 2005 (B Panel – 2002 and C Panel – 1999)

Appointed as Secretary of State decision maker in statutory appeals – 2008/9

Appointed as legal assessor by Secretary of State and by mediators in various contexts.

Chair of the Free Representation Unit 1993 – 4

Chair of Governors of St Luke’s Primary School, Islington since 2001

Regularly lectures on issues in environmental and planning judicial review, social security and general local government including probity and decision making.

Inquiries

Lydd Airport Expansion

13/04/2013

The Secretaries of State for Transport and Communities and Local Government have approved applications for the extension of the runway and a new terminal building at London Ashford Airport, near Lydd in Kent. The applications were called in for a public inquiry after Shepway District Council resolved to grant permission.

The airport lies in close proximity to the RSPB’s bird reserve at Dungeness, and a central issue in the case was the potential impact of the expansion on the Dungeness to Pett Level SPA.  Accepting the Inspector’s recommendation, the Secretaries of State concluded that there was little evidence that there would be any impact on the bird populations such as to require an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations. They also rejected concerns raised by local residents about the proximity of Dungeness nuclear power station.

Barristers from Landmark were involved on both sides of the Inquiry: acting on behalf of Shepway District Council, Paul Brown QC supported the applications, while David Forsdick led the opposition on behalf of the RSPB.

A copy of the decision letter can be found here

:

Inquiries

Landmark Chambers at forefront of United Kingdom Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading appeals

23/05/2011

2010 – 2011 has seen a number of determinations of appeals under the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Regulations 2005 (“the 2005 Regulations”). Prior to this year the only appeal determinations in England and Wales under the 2005 Regulations were one made by the Welsh Ministers in the Alphasteel case (ENDS 2008, 401, 64-65) against a civil penalty notice and one by an Inspector in England against the refusal to allocate allowances from the missing and late reserve under reg. 22A of the 2005 Regulations (APP/ETS/06/02 University Hospital of North Durham v Defra).

This year DECC has made the following determinations under the 2005 Regulations, all were appeals against revocation notices (for further information please click here):

1. Wienerberger Limited – Determination Notice
2. Premier Foods Group Limited – Determination Notice
3. Premier Foods Group Limited – Supplementary Determination
4. White’s Recycling Solutions Limited – Determination Notice
5. White’s Recycling Solutions Limited – Supplementary Determination

While the determinations are available on the DECC website the more detailed reports (all by David Hart QC following non-statutory inquiries) on which the determinations are based have not been published.

The EU ETS is the key policy introduced by the EU to help reduce the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions. The EU ETS is based on Directive 2003/87/EC which established a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community. The Directive is implemented by the 2005 Regulations. Regulation 7 provides that: “No person shall carry out a Schedule 1 activity resulting in specified emissions, except under and to the extent authorised by a greenhouse gas emissions permit.” Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 sets out the activities and “specified emissions” which require operators to hold a greenhouse gas emissions permit. The specified emissions are “carbon dioxide”.

Regulation 16 provides for the surrender of a permit:

“(1) Where an operator has ceased carrying out in an installation all of the Schedule 1 activities authorised by a greenhouse gas emissions permit in relation to that installation, the operator shall apply to the regulator to surrender the permit.
(2) An application under paragraph (1) shall be made before the expiry of one month beginning on the date on which the operator ceased to carry out the activity or activities in the installation to which the greenhouse gas emissions permit relates…
(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply where-
(a) an approved national allocation plan provides for all allowances allocated under these Regulations in respect of any installation in which a Schedule 1 activity is no longer carried out to continue to be issued to the operator of such installation during the scheme phase to which the approved national allocation plan relates;
(b) an approved national allocation plan provides that, if conditions specified in that plan are met, an operator which ceases to carry out a Schedule 1 activity in an installation may retain the allowances allocated in respect of the installation under these Regulations and the operator has, before the expiry of a period of one month beginning on the date on which the operator ceased to carry out the Schedule 1 activities or of the date on which the approved NAP Regulations in relation to the scheme phase for which the allowances are allocated enter into force, whichever is the later, made an application to retain its allocation under regulation 24(1)”

Regulation 17 deals with the revocation of permits and provides materially:

“(1) Subject to paragraph (3), the regulator may at any time revoke a greenhouse gas emissions permit by serving a notice (“a revocation notice”) on the operator…
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1) the regulator shall serve a notice under paragraph (1) where an operator fails to comply with an obligation under regulation 16(1).”

Pursuant to regulation 24, operators which cease to carry out a Schedule 1 activity in an installation may apply to retain these allowances where provided for in the NAP (regulation 24(1)). These are referred to as “rationalisation applications”.

Regulation 32(2) provides that “a person…on whom a revocation notice…is served may appeal to the appropriate authority…” in England that is the Secretary of State for Climate Change, in Wales it is the Welsh Ministers and in Northern Ireland the Planning Appeals Commission.

Regulation 20(1) provides that “the Secretary of State shall develop a national allocation plan in respect of the second scheme phases and in respect of each subsequent scheme phase”. Regulation 20(3) states that “[t]he Secretary of State shall publish in England the national allocation plan developed for each scheme phase…” The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2007 (“the 2007 Regulations”) came into force on 1 May 2007. Regulation 2 provides that for the purposes of the 2005 Regulations, “the document entitled “EU Emissions Trading scheme: Approved Phase II National Allocation Plan 2008-2012″ published by the Secretary of State on 16 March 2007 is specified as the approved national allocation plan for the five year period beginning on 1st January 2008” (“the NAP”).

Section F of Appendix D to the NAP deals with closures of installations. Pursuant to paragraph 71 “[a]n installation is considered to have closed when the Annex I activity at the installation has ceased operating”. Paragraph 72 provides that the operator of an installation that is closing is required to inform the regulator in order to surrender its permit. Paragraph 73 sets out the procedure by which an operator may apply for the temporary closure of an installation. It states as follows: “An operator must also notify the regulator if an installation temporarily ceases an Annex I activity and this temporary closure is intended to be, or becomes, 50 days or longer. The regulators will use their discretion to distinguish between permanent closure and cases where a temporary period of closure has occurred during the normal course of business. Closures that are outside the “normal course of business” would be treated as having permanently ceased operation.”

There has also this year been a determination on a revocation notice appeal in Northern Ireland (Commission Reference: 2010/IP001) in respect of which both the determination and the Planning Appeals Commission report is available. The case concerns Ibstock Brick Limited.

Landmark Chambers has been involved in all the above appeals under the 2005 Regulations:

James Maurici acted for the Environment Agency in the Alphasteel, Wienerberger Limited, Premier Foods Group Limited and White’s Recycling Solutions Limited appeals.
David Forsdick acted for the NIEA in the Ibstock Brick Limited.
Simon Pickles acted for the appellants in the White’s Recycling and University Hospital of North Durham appeals.

:

Inquiries

Cambian

02/05/2008

Successfully judicially reviewing refusal of certificate of lawful use and planning permission for an innovative mental health rehabilitiation unit. Renewed public inquiry pending into acceptability of the proposals. Other counsel involved – Robin Purchas Q.C.

:

Inquiries

Smithfields Inquiry

06/11/2007

Acting for developer with Christopher Katkowski QC in call in inquiry for major developer at Smithfield.The case turns on highly technical engineering and viability evidence to justify demolition of the unlisted part of Smithfield market. Other counsel involved included William Hicks QC and Neil Cameron for the City of London and Robert McCracken QC for English Heritage.

:

Inquiries

Port gains approval in Thames Gateway

01/06/2007

Landmark barristers played a significant part in securing planning permission after years of delay for a major port scheme in the Thames Gateway.

The London Gateway scheme at Shellhaven will be comprised of up to seven container vessel berths and a roll-on-roll-off facility along 2.7km of the quayside on the site of the former Shell oil refinery in Thurrock.

Developer DP World plans to invest about 1.5 billion in the project over the next 10 to 15 years. Construction is planned to begin later this year, with the first occupiers being in place within 12 to 18 months and the port operational from 2010.

The port will provide 1,900 jobs, with thousands more in a logistics and business park next to the port. A public inquiry into the development was held in 2003. An inspector recommended conditions to mitigate the scheme’s impact, particularly on the roads network.

The government issued two letters of approval. No development could take place until its concerns over congestion were allayed, it insisted. Transport Minister Gillian Merron said: “It has taken time to finalise this decision. But it was right to consider it carefully.”

Christopher Katkowski QC promoted and was instructed by MacFarlanes, David Forsdick represented the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), David Smith represented the Treasury Solicitors, Eian Caws represented the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA), Nathalie Lieven QC represented Transco (British Gas) and William Hicks QC and Matthew Reed represented BP Oil.

 

:

Inquiries

Glynebourne Opera House

04/12/2006

Representing Natural England in public inquiry into windfarm in the national park to serve the Opera House.

:

Inquiries

Thames Gateway inquiry

01/06/2005

Landmark barristers played a significant part in securing planning permission after years of delay for a major port scheme in the Thames Gateway.

The London Gateway scheme at Shellhaven will be comprised of up to seven container vessel berths and a roll-on-roll-off facility along 2.7km of the quayside on the site of the former Shell oil refinery in Thurrock.

Developer DP World plans to invest about 1.5 billion in the project over the next 10 to 15 years. The port will provide 1,900 jobs, with thousands more in a logistics and business park next to the port. A public inquiry into the development was held in 2003. An inspector recommended conditions to mitigate the scheme’s impact, particularly on the roads network.

The government issued two letters of approval. No development could take place until its concerns over congestion were allayed, it insisted. Transport Minister Gillian Merron said: “It has taken time to finalise this decision. But it was right to consider it carefully.”

Christopher Katkowski QC promoted and was instructed by MacFarlanes, David Forsdick represented the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), David Smith represented the Treasury Solicitors, Eian Caws represented the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA), Nathalie Lieven QC represented Transco (British Gas) and William Hicks QC and Matthew Reed represented BP Oil.

:

Inquiries

Dibden Bay Deep Sea Container Terminal (Nov 2001 – Dec 2002)

01/12/2002

Major inquiry into new container port at Southampton. Ran from November 2001 to December 2002. Richard Drabble QC and Graeme Keen acted for New Forest DC and Hampshire CC, the principal opponents to the scheme. David Elvin QC and David Forsdick acted for RSPB. David Smith acted for Defence Estates/MOD.

:

Inquiries

Lydd Airport Expansion

13/04/2013

The Secretaries of State for Transport and Communities and Local Government have approved applications for the extension of the runway and a new terminal building at London Ashford Airport, near Lydd in Kent. The applications were called in for a public inquiry after Shepway District Council resolved to grant permission.

The airport lies in close proximity to the RSPB’s bird reserve at Dungeness, and a central issue in the case was the potential impact of the expansion on the Dungeness to Pett Level SPA.  Accepting the Inspector’s recommendation, the Secretaries of State concluded that there was little evidence that there would be any impact on the bird populations such as to require an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations. They also rejected concerns raised by local residents about the proximity of Dungeness nuclear power station.

Barristers from Landmark were involved on both sides of the Inquiry: acting on behalf of Shepway District Council, Paul Brown QC supported the applications, while David Forsdick led the opposition on behalf of the RSPB.

A copy of the decision letter can be found here

:

Inquiries

Landmark Chambers at forefront of United Kingdom Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading appeals

23/05/2011

2010 – 2011 has seen a number of determinations of appeals under the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Regulations 2005 (“the 2005 Regulations”). Prior to this year the only appeal determinations in England and Wales under the 2005 Regulations were one made by the Welsh Ministers in the Alphasteel case (ENDS 2008, 401, 64-65) against a civil penalty notice and one by an Inspector in England against the refusal to allocate allowances from the missing and late reserve under reg. 22A of the 2005 Regulations (APP/ETS/06/02 University Hospital of North Durham v Defra).

This year DECC has made the following determinations under the 2005 Regulations, all were appeals against revocation notices (for further information please click here):

1. Wienerberger Limited – Determination Notice
2. Premier Foods Group Limited – Determination Notice
3. Premier Foods Group Limited – Supplementary Determination
4. White’s Recycling Solutions Limited – Determination Notice
5. White’s Recycling Solutions Limited – Supplementary Determination

While the determinations are available on the DECC website the more detailed reports (all by David Hart QC following non-statutory inquiries) on which the determinations are based have not been published.

The EU ETS is the key policy introduced by the EU to help reduce the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions. The EU ETS is based on Directive 2003/87/EC which established a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community. The Directive is implemented by the 2005 Regulations. Regulation 7 provides that: “No person shall carry out a Schedule 1 activity resulting in specified emissions, except under and to the extent authorised by a greenhouse gas emissions permit.” Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 sets out the activities and “specified emissions” which require operators to hold a greenhouse gas emissions permit. The specified emissions are “carbon dioxide”.

Regulation 16 provides for the surrender of a permit:

“(1) Where an operator has ceased carrying out in an installation all of the Schedule 1 activities authorised by a greenhouse gas emissions permit in relation to that installation, the operator shall apply to the regulator to surrender the permit.
(2) An application under paragraph (1) shall be made before the expiry of one month beginning on the date on which the operator ceased to carry out the activity or activities in the installation to which the greenhouse gas emissions permit relates…
(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply where-
(a) an approved national allocation plan provides for all allowances allocated under these Regulations in respect of any installation in which a Schedule 1 activity is no longer carried out to continue to be issued to the operator of such installation during the scheme phase to which the approved national allocation plan relates;
(b) an approved national allocation plan provides that, if conditions specified in that plan are met, an operator which ceases to carry out a Schedule 1 activity in an installation may retain the allowances allocated in respect of the installation under these Regulations and the operator has, before the expiry of a period of one month beginning on the date on which the operator ceased to carry out the Schedule 1 activities or of the date on which the approved NAP Regulations in relation to the scheme phase for which the allowances are allocated enter into force, whichever is the later, made an application to retain its allocation under regulation 24(1)”

Regulation 17 deals with the revocation of permits and provides materially:

“(1) Subject to paragraph (3), the regulator may at any time revoke a greenhouse gas emissions permit by serving a notice (“a revocation notice”) on the operator…
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1) the regulator shall serve a notice under paragraph (1) where an operator fails to comply with an obligation under regulation 16(1).”

Pursuant to regulation 24, operators which cease to carry out a Schedule 1 activity in an installation may apply to retain these allowances where provided for in the NAP (regulation 24(1)). These are referred to as “rationalisation applications”.

Regulation 32(2) provides that “a person…on whom a revocation notice…is served may appeal to the appropriate authority…” in England that is the Secretary of State for Climate Change, in Wales it is the Welsh Ministers and in Northern Ireland the Planning Appeals Commission.

Regulation 20(1) provides that “the Secretary of State shall develop a national allocation plan in respect of the second scheme phases and in respect of each subsequent scheme phase”. Regulation 20(3) states that “[t]he Secretary of State shall publish in England the national allocation plan developed for each scheme phase…” The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2007 (“the 2007 Regulations”) came into force on 1 May 2007. Regulation 2 provides that for the purposes of the 2005 Regulations, “the document entitled “EU Emissions Trading scheme: Approved Phase II National Allocation Plan 2008-2012″ published by the Secretary of State on 16 March 2007 is specified as the approved national allocation plan for the five year period beginning on 1st January 2008” (“the NAP”).

Section F of Appendix D to the NAP deals with closures of installations. Pursuant to paragraph 71 “[a]n installation is considered to have closed when the Annex I activity at the installation has ceased operating”. Paragraph 72 provides that the operator of an installation that is closing is required to inform the regulator in order to surrender its permit. Paragraph 73 sets out the procedure by which an operator may apply for the temporary closure of an installation. It states as follows: “An operator must also notify the regulator if an installation temporarily ceases an Annex I activity and this temporary closure is intended to be, or becomes, 50 days or longer. The regulators will use their discretion to distinguish between permanent closure and cases where a temporary period of closure has occurred during the normal course of business. Closures that are outside the “normal course of business” would be treated as having permanently ceased operation.”

There has also this year been a determination on a revocation notice appeal in Northern Ireland (Commission Reference: 2010/IP001) in respect of which both the determination and the Planning Appeals Commission report is available. The case concerns Ibstock Brick Limited.

Landmark Chambers has been involved in all the above appeals under the 2005 Regulations:

James Maurici acted for the Environment Agency in the Alphasteel, Wienerberger Limited, Premier Foods Group Limited and White’s Recycling Solutions Limited appeals.
David Forsdick acted for the NIEA in the Ibstock Brick Limited.
Simon Pickles acted for the appellants in the White’s Recycling and University Hospital of North Durham appeals.

:

Inquiries

Cambian

02/05/2008

Successfully judicially reviewing refusal of certificate of lawful use and planning permission for an innovative mental health rehabilitiation unit. Renewed public inquiry pending into acceptability of the proposals. Other counsel involved – Robin Purchas Q.C.

:

Inquiries

Smithfields Inquiry

06/11/2007

Acting for developer with Christopher Katkowski QC in call in inquiry for major developer at Smithfield.The case turns on highly technical engineering and viability evidence to justify demolition of the unlisted part of Smithfield market. Other counsel involved included William Hicks QC and Neil Cameron for the City of London and Robert McCracken QC for English Heritage.

:

Inquiries

Port gains approval in Thames Gateway

01/06/2007

Landmark barristers played a significant part in securing planning permission after years of delay for a major port scheme in the Thames Gateway.

The London Gateway scheme at Shellhaven will be comprised of up to seven container vessel berths and a roll-on-roll-off facility along 2.7km of the quayside on the site of the former Shell oil refinery in Thurrock.

Developer DP World plans to invest about 1.5 billion in the project over the next 10 to 15 years. Construction is planned to begin later this year, with the first occupiers being in place within 12 to 18 months and the port operational from 2010.

The port will provide 1,900 jobs, with thousands more in a logistics and business park next to the port. A public inquiry into the development was held in 2003. An inspector recommended conditions to mitigate the scheme’s impact, particularly on the roads network.

The government issued two letters of approval. No development could take place until its concerns over congestion were allayed, it insisted. Transport Minister Gillian Merron said: “It has taken time to finalise this decision. But it was right to consider it carefully.”

Christopher Katkowski QC promoted and was instructed by MacFarlanes, David Forsdick represented the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), David Smith represented the Treasury Solicitors, Eian Caws represented the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA), Nathalie Lieven QC represented Transco (British Gas) and William Hicks QC and Matthew Reed represented BP Oil.

 

:

Inquiries

Glynebourne Opera House

04/12/2006

Representing Natural England in public inquiry into windfarm in the national park to serve the Opera House.

:

Inquiries

Thames Gateway inquiry

01/06/2005

Landmark barristers played a significant part in securing planning permission after years of delay for a major port scheme in the Thames Gateway.

The London Gateway scheme at Shellhaven will be comprised of up to seven container vessel berths and a roll-on-roll-off facility along 2.7km of the quayside on the site of the former Shell oil refinery in Thurrock.

Developer DP World plans to invest about 1.5 billion in the project over the next 10 to 15 years. The port will provide 1,900 jobs, with thousands more in a logistics and business park next to the port. A public inquiry into the development was held in 2003. An inspector recommended conditions to mitigate the scheme’s impact, particularly on the roads network.

The government issued two letters of approval. No development could take place until its concerns over congestion were allayed, it insisted. Transport Minister Gillian Merron said: “It has taken time to finalise this decision. But it was right to consider it carefully.”

Christopher Katkowski QC promoted and was instructed by MacFarlanes, David Forsdick represented the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), David Smith represented the Treasury Solicitors, Eian Caws represented the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA), Nathalie Lieven QC represented Transco (British Gas) and William Hicks QC and Matthew Reed represented BP Oil.

:

Inquiries

Dibden Bay Deep Sea Container Terminal (Nov 2001 – Dec 2002)

01/12/2002

Major inquiry into new container port at Southampton. Ran from November 2001 to December 2002. Richard Drabble QC and Graeme Keen acted for New Forest DC and Hampshire CC, the principal opponents to the scheme. David Elvin QC and David Forsdick acted for RSPB. David Smith acted for Defence Estates/MOD.

:
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