James Maurici QC

Call: 1996Silk: 2013
Download CV

Practice Summary

James Maurici was called to the Bar of England & Wales in 1996. He was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2013. He practices in planning; environmental law; and public law. His practice regularly encompasses EU and international law. He was a member of the Attorney-General’s London Panels of Junior Counsel to the Crown from 1999-2013. He previously also served on the Welsh Assembly Government’s Junior Counsel Panel from 2009 to 2013. He was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2009 and practises in that jurisdiction also.

He has extensive experience of appearing in the Higher Courts as well as at inquiries and in front of other tribunals. For more detail of recent work in each of these categories see cases and inquiries. James has appeared in numerous cases before the European Court of Justice and the General Court (formerly the Court of First Instance) and has appeared a number of times before the UNECE Aarhus Compliance Committee in Geneva. James works for a wide range of public sector clients, private clients and public interest groups. In 2010 James was awarded Junior of the Year in the Planning & Environment category of the Chambers & Partners Bar Awards.

Professional Memberships

He is a member of the Administrative Law Bar Association, the United Kingdom Environmental Law Association (‘UKELA’), the Planning and Environment Bar Association (“PEBA”), the Human Rights Lawyers Association, the United Kingdom Association for European Law, the Compulsory Purchase Association, the Bar European Group, United Kingdom Environmental Law Association (“UKELA”), the National Infrastructure Planning Association (“NIPA”) and the UK State Aid Law Association. Between June 2008 and June 2016 we was on the Council of UKELA and was also on the Executive Committee of UKELA for much of that time.

View James’s profile on our International site

Planning

James’ planning practice encompasses all aspects of planning both at inquiries and hearings and in the Higher Courts. His practice also encompasses compulsory purchase and compensation, harbours, highways, rights of way, commons registration and village greens (both inquiries and in the Higher Courts). James regularly advises on the EU public procurement and state aid issues arising in the planning and compulsory purchase context. James chairs the Planning Steering Group at Landmark Chambers.

Planning Inquiries

James’ planning inquiry experience is wide ranging with a particular recent focus on large housing schemes (including recently having successfully acted on recovered appeals in respect of a 1000 home sustainable urban extension in Northampton and a 500 plus home scheme in Ribble Valley). James recently acted for Wisley Properties Investments Limited, instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills, on a recovered appeal for a sustainable new settlements of up to 2068 homes on the former Wisley Airfield in Guildford. The inquiry lasted 5 weeks. James is also acting for Tarmac promoting Birchall Garden Suburb proposed for 2550 new homes.

James also has lots of experience dealing with student accommodation schemes. He has worked on a number of solar developments including the called-in application in respect of Wroughton Airfield. He also has recent experience of complex enforcement appeals. James has particular expertise in advising and acting in respect of development affecting National Parks and AONBs and in relation to habitats and air quality issues.

Examinations in public

James has appeared at several Local Plan examination hearings for developers; he is advising promoters in respect of a number of proposals in emerging Local Plans. He has also advised a number of local planning authorities on issues related to preparation of Development Plans. He is currently advising the South Downs National Park on its emerging Local Plan.

High Court planning work

His recent high-profile planning cases include acting for the Government in R. (Shirley) v SSCLG [2017] EWHC 2306 (Admin) on the interpretation of the air quality directive; R (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] 5 Costs L.O. 691 on the challenge to the revised Aarhus costs rules and the airports strike out case Hillingdon LBC v Secretary of State for Transport [2017] EWHC 121 (Admin); Redhill v SSCLG [2015] P.T.S.R. 274 on the meaning of “any other harm” in Green Belt policy. He also acted for the Government on challenges to High Speed 2 (Buckinghamshire & Others v Secretary of State for Transport [2014] 1 W.L.R. 324); the revocation of Regional Strategies R (Cala Homes) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government) Nos.1 and 2 [2011] 2 E.G.L.R. 75); and the proposed Heathrow Runway 3 R (Hillingdon) v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] J.P.L. 976). James has huge experience of dealing with EIA, SEA and habitats cases in the Higher Courts. See also: Wealden DC v SSCLG [2017] J.P.L. 625; R. (Skelmersdale Ltd Partnership) v West Lancashire BC [2016] EWCA Civ 1260; R. (Smech Properties Ltd) v Runnymede BC [2016] EWCA Civ 42; R. (Birchall Gardens LLP) v Hertfordshire CC [2017] Env. L.R. 17; R. (Nicholson) v Allerdale BC [2015] EWHC 2510 (Admin); R. (Midcounties Co-operative Ltd) v Forest of Dean DC [2015] B.L.G.R. 829Jaytee (Rainton) LLP v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 2835 (Admin); R. (Prideaux) v Buckinghamshire CC [2013] Env. L.R. 32; William Davis Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 3058 (Admin);  Stratford on Avon DC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] J.P.L. 104; and Tewkesbury BC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] B.L.G.R. 399.

Planning Act 2008

He is acting for the Department of Transport in relation to the response to the Airports Commission final report. James acted for FCC Environment in their legal challenge under the Planning Act 2008 to the Rookery South (Resource Recovery Facility) Order 2011. He acted for the Secretary of State in a challenge to the Able Marine DCO.

Village greens and commons

James has appeared at a number of village green inquiries for both applicants and objectors. His High Court cases in this area include R. (Laing Homes Ltd) v Buckinghamshire CC [2004] 1 P. & C.R. 36; Oxfordshire CC v Oxford City Council [2006] 2 A.C. 674 and R. (SDR) v Bristol City Council [2012] EWHC 859 (Admin).

He also regularly acts in commons related work. He also regularly advises on commons consent and related issues.

CPO

He has promoted a number of CPOs. He was part of the legal team acting on the Tottenham Hotspur stadium CPO. He acted for Hounslow Borough Council at the inquiry into the Hounslow (Lionel Road South) Compulsory Purchase Order 2014 concerning Brentford Football Club’s new stadium. James has defended a number of High Court challenges to CPO orders including: the Olympic CPO challenges (Sole v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2007] EWHC 1527 (Admin); R. (Neptune Wharf Ltd) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2007] 3 All E.R. 676 and Smith v Secretary of State for Trade and [2008] 1 W.L.R. 394) and a number of challenges to Pathfinder CPOs (Pascoe v First Secretary of State (No. 1) [2007] 1 W.L.R. 885 and  (No. 2) [2009] EWHC 881 (Admin); McCabe v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2007] EWHC 959 (Admin))). He also acts in compensation matters (see e.g. Kingsley v Highways Agency [2012] R.V.R. 12).

Rights of way and highways

James has acted in a number of rights of way inquiries and regularly advises on highways issues including highways orders under the Highways Act 1980.

Ports, harbours and marine licensing

James successfully defended the first judicial review brought of the Marine Management Organisation: see R. (Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd) v Marine Management Organisation [2012] EWHC 3058 (QB). He has acted in a number of Harbours Act 1964 cases, see e.g. R. (Great Yarmouth Port Co Ltd) v Marine Management Organisation (No. 1) [2013] EWHC 3052 (Admin) and R (Great Yarmouth Port Co Ltd) v Marine Management Organisation (No. 2) [2014] EWHC 833 (Admin). He regularly advises on harbour related issues. And also has particular experience of nature conservation issues in a ports context: see e.g. R (Lymington River Association) v Secretary Of State For Communities & Local Government [2013] EWHC 2810 (Admin) and Humber Sea Terminal Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport[2006] Env. L.R. 4. He acted for the Folkestone Harbour Company in promoting the Folkestone Harbour Revision Order 2017. He acted for the Secretary of State in a challenge to the Able Marine DCO.

Environment

James’ environmental law practice is wide-ranging, covering matters such as habitats and species protection, contaminated land, air quality, waste, access to environmental information, statutory and common law nuisance and all aspects of environment impact assessment, strategic environmental assessment and environmental permitting. He has particular expertise on climate change issues, and especially emissions trading. He has also been involved in a number of cases concerning marine environmental issues. He regularly advises and is involved in cases concerning access to environmental information. James co-chairs (with David Elvin QC) the Environmental Steering Group at Landmark Chambers,

He regularly appears in the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the General Court of the European Union (formerly the European Court of First Instance) on environmental matters.

He has also appeared a number of times before the UNECE Aarhus Compliance Committee in Geneva: cases include: ACCC/C/2010/45; ACCC/C/2010/53 (Edinburgh Tram) ACCC/C/2011/60; ACCC/C/2011/61 (Crossrail); ACCC/C/2012/77 (Nuclear NPS); and ACCC/C/2014/100 and 101 (High Speed 2).

He is on the LexisPSL Environment Consulting Editorial Board and on the editorial board of Garner’s Environmental Law.

Access to environmental information

He is regularly involved in advising in cases involving freedom of information and in particular the Environmental Information Regulations. He was previously a member of the Treasury Solicitor’s Freedom of Information list of Panel Counsel. He has acted in a number of cases in the tribunals on these issues. He is the author of chapter on “Access under the Environmental Information Regulations” in P. Coppell Information Rights Law and Practice 4th ed (2014). Recent cases include: Case C-71-14 East Sussex County Council v Information Commissioner [2016] P.T.S.R. 179 (property searches and the Environmental Information Directive); Case C 279/12 Fish Legal & Emily Shirley v The Information Commissioner, United Utilities, Yorkshire Water and Southern Water [2014] 2 W.L.R. 568 (the meaning of public authority under the Environmental Information Directive).

Aarhus costs

James has been in many of the leading cases on Aarhus costs including: R (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] 5 Costs L.O. 691 (challenge to the revised Aarhus costs rules), Case C 530/11 Commission v United Kingdom and Case C-260/11 Edwards v Environment Agency (costs and environmental judicial review cases before the CJEU); R. (Edwards) v Environment Agency (No.2) [2011] 1 Costs L.R. 70 and [2013] UKSC 78; R. (Edwards) v Environment Agency [2011] 1 W.L.R. 79. He has also appeared a number of times before the UNECE Aarhus Compliance Committee in Geneva.

EIA

James has appeared in many of the leading cases on EIA including: Berkeley v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] 2 A.C. 603 and Case C-290/03 R (Barker) v Bromley LBC [2007] 1 AC 470. More recent cases include: R. (Birchall Gardens LLP) v Hertfordshire CC [2017] Env. L.R. 1 (EIA screening); R. (Padden) v Maidstone BC [2014] EWHC 51 (Admin) (EIA and retrospective consent); R. (Loader) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2012] 3 C.M.L.R. 29; R. (Berky) v Newport City Council [2012] 2 C.M.L.R. 44 (delay and EIA); Save Britain’s Heritage v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] 2 C.M.L.R. 48 (demolition and EIA).

SEA

Cases include Case C-567/10 Inter-Environnement Bruxelles ASBL, Case C-474/10 Seaport (NI) Ltd, Magherafelt District Council and Others v Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland (both in the CJEU).

EU emissions trading

James has acted in a number of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme civil penalty appeals. His cases include: C-504/09 P Commission v Poland; Case T-183/07 Poland v Commission [2009] ECR II-3395; Case T-369/07 Latvia v Commission; and Case T-263/07 Estonia v Commission [2009] ECR II 3463 (before the CJEU and the General Court).

Air quality

James has particular expertise in air quality issues (affecting both human and ecological receptors). He has appeared for developers in a number of inquiries raising these issues and also acted in High Court cases such as R. (Shirley) v SSCLG [2017] EWHC 2306 (Admin) (interpretation of the air quality directive); Wealden DC v SSCLG [2017] EWCA Civ 39 (habitats and air quality); Hillingdon LBC v Secretary of State for Transport [2017] EWHC 121 (Admin) (airport expansion judicial review strike out).

Habitats and species protection law

Recent cases include Wealden DC v SSCLG [2017] EWCA Civ 39 (habitats and air quality); R (McMorn) v Natural England [2016] Env. L.R. 14; R. (Prideaux) v Buckinghamshire CC [2013] Env. L.R. 32. James has acted in numerous planning appeals concerning habitats and species protection issues. He has also acted on a number of appeals under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. He advises on all legal aspects of habitats and species protection. James has worked on a number of high profile appeals and High Court cases in relation to shooting estates and shooting rights.

Fracking

He has been involved in litigation and advisory work involving fracking: see R. (Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association) v West Sussex CC [2014] EWHC 4108 (Admin) and R. (Dean) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2017] 4 W.L.R. 158.

Contaminated land

He has acted in a number of cases concerning the contaminated land regime in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. He acted for the Secretary of State in challenges to the first ever remediation notice appeal (see R. (Redland Minerals Ltd) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2011] Env. L.R. 2 and R. (Crest Nicholson Residential Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2011] Env. L.R. 1). He also appeared for Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council on the second ever appeal against a remediation notice in respect of the former Willenhall Gas Works.

Enforcement including civil sanctions

James is acting for Natural England in Forager Ltd v Natural England the first appeal against a stop notice under theEnvironmental Civil Sanctions (England) Order 2010. He has written and spoken on civil sanctions issues see e.g. Rethinking regulatory sanctions: Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 – an exchange of letters E.L.M. 2009, 21(4), 183-188 (with Professor Richard Macrory) and Possible legal issues arising under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008: lessons to be learnt from the Alphasteel greenhouse gas emissions trading penalty appeal Env. Law 2008, 48, 2-10. James has acted in a number of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme civil penalty appeals

Ports, Harbours and marine licensing

James successfully defended the first judicial review brought of the Marine Management Organisation: see R. (Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd) v Marine Management Organisation [2012] EWHC 3058 (QB). He has acted in a number of Harbours Act 1964 cases, see e.g. R. (Great Yarmouth Port Co Ltd) v Marine Management Organisation (No. 1) [2013] EWHC 3052 (Admin) and R (Great Yarmouth Port Co Ltd) v Marine Management Organisation (No. 2) [2014] EWHC 833 (Admin). He regularly advises on harbour related issues. And also has particular experience of nature conservation issues in a ports context: see e.g. R (Lymington River Association) v Secretary Of State For Communities & Local Government [2013] EWHC 2810 (Admin) and Humber Sea Terminal Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport [2006] Env. L.R. 4. He acted for the Folkestone Harbour Company in promoting the Folkestone Harbour Revision Order 2017. He acted for the Secretary of State in a challenge to the Able Marine DCO.

Environmental permitting and licensing

See e.g. in the Supreme Court R (Mott) v Environment Agency [2018] UKSC 10.

Waste

James regularly advises on complex waste issues. James is acting for the Environment Agency in the case of Protreat v Environment Agency on reprocessed oils. He has been in a number of the leading European cases on waste including: Case C-247/06 Commission v Federal Republic of Germany; Case C-188/07 Commune de Mesquer v Total France SA and Total International Ltd. [2008] E.C.R. I-4501; Case C-255/05 Commission v Italy [2007] ECR I-5767; Case C-262/05; R. (Thames Water Utilities Ltd) v Bromley Magistrates’ Court [2007] E.C.R. I-3883and Case C-176/05 KVZ Retec GmbH v Austria [2007] Env LR D14. He has extensive experience of litigating waste infrastructure in the domestic courts, see e.g.: R. (FCC Environment (UK) Ltd) v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2015] Env. L.R. 22; R. (Prideaux) v Buckinghamshire CC [2013] Env. L.R. 32 and R. (Blewett) v Derbyshire CC [2005] Env. L.R. 1.

International environmental law

James has a keen interest in environmental international law. He regularly appears in Geneva before the UNECE Aarhus Compliance Committee and has written and lectured on international environmental law see e.g. International law in domestic practice: advice for practitioners on how international and comparative law arises in domestic case law in the ELM.

Public Law

His public law practice includes housing (see e.g. Yemshaw v Hounslow LBC [2011] 1 W.L.R. 433), social security (including national insurance) (see e.g. Zalewska v Department for Social Development [2008] UKHL 67), education (James was a governor at two state primary schools for 13 years in total and a Chair of Governors for 5 years), regulatory, local government including local government finance (see e.g. R (Cheshire East BC) v Secretary of State for the Environment Queen’s Bench [2011] EWHC 1975 (Admin)); EU law and all aspects of human rights law. He has appeared in a number of high profile public law cases including: R (Sharon Shoesmith) v Ofsted and Others [2011] P.T.S.R. 1459; R (Bradley and others) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions [2009] Q.B. 114; Ken Livingstone v Adjudication Panel for England [2006] H.R.L.R. 45; R v. Bow Street Magistrate, ex p. Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2)  [2000] 1 A.C. 119 and the Alconbury litigation [2003] 2 A.C. 295. He was also part of the counsel team, acting for 169 Iraqi claimants alleging systemic abuse by the Armed forces in Iraq R (Ali Zaki Moussa) v the Secretary of State for Defence (No. 2) [2013] H.R.L.R. 32.

James has particular experience in cases involving the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman the Local Government Ombudsman and the Public Service Ombudsman for Wales. He has been involved in a number of cases concerning public law challenges in the health context: see e.g. Miller v Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman [2015] EWHC 2981 (Admin); R. (Jeremiah) v Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman [2013] EWHC 1085 (Admin); R. (Mencap) v Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman [2012] P.T.S.R. D17; Flasz v Havering Primary Care Trust [2011] EWHC 1487 (Admin) and R (Primary Health Investment Properties Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health [2009] P.T.S.R. 1563.

He is regularly involved in advising in cases involving freedom of information and in particular the Environmental Information Regulations. He was previously a member of the Treasury Solicitor’s Freedom of Information list of Panel Counsel. He has acted in a number of cases in the tribunals on these issues. He is the author of chapter on “Access under the Environmental Information Regulations” in P. Coppell Information Rights Law and Practice 4th ed (2014). He appeared for the UK in Case C-279/12 Fish Legal and another v Information Commissioner [2014] 2 W.L.R. 568 (recent decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice on the meaning of “public authority” under Directive 2003/4/EC) and also in Case C-71/14 East Sussex CC v Information Commissioner [2016] P.T.S.R. 179. He is also acting for a number of Government departments in group litigation in respect of property search charges fees said to have been levied contrary to Directive 2003/4/EC.

James was a founder of Judicial Review (Taylor & Francis) with Michael Fordham QC in 1996 and acted as assistant editor and then co-editor for over 20 years. He is now a consultant editor.

International Law

In addition to his extensive European Court practice (see above) James has made several appearances before the UNECE Aarhus Compliance Committee in Geneva. He has acted in cases going to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. His international practice also includes cases in the Isle of Man (including before the Staff of Government see e.g. Penfolds v The Treasury) and public law advisory work in Gibraltar and the Turks and Caicos Islands. He has appeared in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand Mick v Removal Review Authority ([1999] NZAR 111).

European Law

He regularly appears in the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the General Court of the European Union (formerly the European Court of First Instance) on environmental matters. Recent cases include: Case C-71-14 East Sussex County Council v Information Commissioner [2016] P.T.S.R. 179 (property searches and the Environmental Information Directive); Case C 279/12 Fish Legal & Emily Shirley v The Information Commissioner, United Utilities, Yorkshire Water and Southern Water [2014] 2 W.L.R. 568 (the meaning of public authority under the Environmental Information Directive); Case C-43/12 Commission v European Parliament and Council (cross-border exchange of on road safety related traffic offences); Case C 530/11 Commission v United Kingdom and Case C-260/11 Edwards v Environment Agency (costs and environmental judicial reviews); Case C-567/10 Inter-Environnement Bruxelles ASBL, (strategic environmental assessment) 22/3/2012; C-504/09 P Commission v Poland (EU Emissions Trading) 29/03/2012; Case C-474/10 Seaport (NI) Ltd, Magherafelt District Council and Others v Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland (strategic environmental assessment) 20/10/2011 and Case T-369/07 Latvia v Commission  (EU Emissions Trading) 22/03/2011.

James regularly advises on the EU public procurement and state aid issues arising in the planning and compulsory purchase context and beyond. 

Qualifications

James read Jurisprudence at Hertford College, Oxford (BA First Class Honours in 1994 and BCL First Class in 1995). In his BA he was awarded the Martin Wronker proxime.

He was also previously a part-time College Lecturer in European Law at Hertford College, Oxford.

Publications

James has written many articles on planning and environmental issues, as well as on judicial review more generally: see by way of example only:

  • International law in domestic practice: advice for practitioners on how international and comparative law arises in domestic case law E.L.M. 2016, 28(3/4), 155-163
  • “Access to Justice: Review Procedures and Costs” in the Aarhus Convention A guide for UK Lawyers ed. C Banner (2015, Bloomsbury)
  • Dealing with a non-active defendant in judicial review proceedings J.R. 2015, 20(3), 157-159
  • When does the heightened Mass Energy permission test apply? J.R. 2015, 20(2), 105-113
  • State aid in planning and compulsory purchase order cases J.P.L. 2015, 6, 621-643
  • Public law reviewability of land disposal (and management) decisions J.R. 2014, 19(4), 237-252
  • Environmental Information Regulations chapter in Information Rights Law and Practice P Coppel (2014)
  • The influence of the Aarhus Convention on EU Environmental Law Parts I and II J.P.L. 2014, 2, 181-202 and J.P.L. 2013, 12, 1496-1512
  • Aarhus access to justice and civil sanctions update E.L.M. 2011, 23(4), 170-198
  • Judicial review and the MMO Env. Law 2010, 60, 18-25
  • Climate change – case-law update Env. Law 2010, 58, 10-23
  • Consent orders in section 288 and 289 proceedings J.P.L. 2010, 10, 1217-1236
  • Disclosure and freedom of information in High Court challenges Env. Law 2010, 56, 20-34
  • Rethinking regulatory sanctions: Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 – an exchange of letters E.L.M. 2009, 21(4), 183-188

Recommendations

In Chambers & Partners 2019 James is recommended as a leading silk in the following areas:

  • Planning: “He is an absolute pleasure to work with, user-friendly and incredibly bright. He is hugely efficient, clear and concise and gives great advice in terms of substance and clarity.” “He is a real intellectual powerhouse and you can really rely on him. He collaborates well.”
  • Environment: “His technical knowledge is superb and he is extremely easy to work with.” “Dynamic and intelligent, he makes tactically sound decisions and is a brilliant advocate.” “He commands respect through the exceptional quality of his work.”
  • Administrative & Public Law: “An exceptionally bright and able advocate who is a pleasure to work with.” “Incredibly intelligent, with a lovely style of delivery and emotional as well as academic intelligence.”
  • Local Government: “His knowledge and skills are outstanding – he has a truly impressive ability to sift through complex data and principles and to return results. He’s down-to-earth, easy to work with and commands respect through the exceptional quality of his work.”
  • Civil Liberties & Human Rights: “His client care is absolutely excellent and his knowledge is completely unrivalled. He is also very easy to deal with.”

In Legal 500 2018 James was rated in:

  • Planning: “Probably the most intelligent barrister in planning and has a voracious ability to absorb the details of big cases.”
  • Administrative and public law (including local government): “Phenomenally good, straightforward to deal with and stays calm under pressure.”
  • Civil liberties and human rights: “Provides consistently excellent verbal and written advice. Measured and extremely effective.”
  • EU law: “Phenomenally good, straightforward to deal with, seems to handle a very big case load.”
  • Environment: “A top environmental barrister.” “In the Supreme Court… James Maurici QC and Gwion Lewis appeared for the Environment Agency in R (Mott) v Environment Agency on whether fishermen should be compensated from public funds if their fishing rights are restricted in the public interest to avoid ecological damage.”

In Chambers & Partners 2018:

  • In Planning Law: A respected advocate well equipped to act in a broad range of planning cases for developers and public entities. The long list of areas in which he is experienced includes advising on EU matters and state aid issues related to planning or compulsory purchase. Strengths: “He is an intellectual powerhouse who brings calm reflection to complex planning matters. He is a fearsome advocate and has an encyclopaedic knowledge of green belt planning issues.” “His broad range of experience is invaluable at public inquiries and he is able to combine deep knowledge, significant intellect, legal understanding and an appreciation of commercial realities. He is an excellent advocate in both oral and written situations, and becomes quickly and effortlessly immersed in the detail.””
  • In Environmental Law: “A leading figure for matters involving climate change, fracking and marine environmental issues. He also advises clients on air quality, habitat and species protection, contaminated land and common law nuisance complaints. Strengths: “Really user-friendly and very good on his feet. He is one of the top silks that I’ve used.” “Very approachable and commercial. He’s got a brain the size of Mars and a grasp on a whole variety of matters. He provides very clear, sensible and commercial advice.””
  • In Local Government Law: “Experienced public law silk with a fine track record of advising public authorities on complex matters arising within the context of housing and education. He is regularly instructed in high-stakes local government disputes and has a solid understanding of EU law, human rights and funding issues. Strengths: “His style is excellent in that he’s not bombastic and he knows the power of the argument will prevail when acting as advocate.””
  • In Civil Liberties: ” A highly experienced civil liberties and human rights silk who is regularly called on to appear in ground-breaking, high-profile cases. His highly active practice sees him regularly appearing before domestic, European and international courts. Strengths: “He really knows his stuff.” “A very good public lawyer, he is straightforward and a good advocate.””
  • In Administrative & Public Law: “He is very impressive. His submissions are logical and structured.”

In Chambers & Partners 2017:

  • In Planning Law: “He is extremely clever, incisive and gets to the point. His knowledge and understanding of planning, compulsory purchase and a range of related public law matters is unparalleled. He is also easy to work with, down-to-earth and approachable, and he is an excellent advocate both orally and in writing.” “He gets thoroughly involved and immersed in the work that he does. When you instruct James, he is full-blooded and full-hearted.”
  • In Environmental Law: “He’s pretty persuasive and user-friendly.” “He’s ahead of the pack as an advocate as well as intellectually.”
  • In Local Government Law: “Thorough in his evaluation of cases, and confident and inspiring in providing advice and conducting advocacy.”
  • In Civil Liberties: “Given his encyclopaedic knowledge he is able to present and respond to anything thrown at him, and he’s a pleasure to work with.” “He is very intelligent and dedicated.”
  • In Administrative & Public Law: “Combines intelligence, insight and ease of use.” “Measured in his approach, incredibly meticulous and thorough. He has a mind like a razor. Can enter a situation and give you the answer immediately. Just outstanding.”

In Chambers & Partners 2016:

  • In Planning Law: “He gives very good, clear, coherent and robust advice. There is no skirting around the edges with him.” “I tend to go to him with technical points and when I need a real legal view on something. He is a strong lawyer, not just an advocate.”
  • In Environmental Law: “He is an undoubted star at everything he does. He’s very intelligent, brilliant on EU law and supreme in terms of his general legal analysis.”
  • In Local Government Law: “Really top-notch for judicial review, he is very good tactically and has a really clear insight into how judicial review cases are won and lost – I value his insight enormously.” “Has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the case law, and gets to grips with every fact in the case. He has such a pleasant, client-friendly manner as well.”
  • In Civil Liberties: “He is absolutely first-class. He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the case law, he gets to grips with every fact of the case. You couldn’t want a better barrister to work with. He has such a pleasant, client-friendly manner as well. The only improvement you could make is to clone him.”
  • In Administrative & Public Law: “He’s very good tactically and has a really clear insight into how judicial review cases are won and lost.” “He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of case law and such a pleasant, client-friendly manner as well.”

In the Legal 500 2017 James was rated in:

  • Administrative & Public Law: “His depth of knowledge is excellent and he always delivers to deadlines.”
  • Civil Liberties and Human Rights: “‘He provides consistently excellent verbal and written advice.”
  • EU law: “An established silk.”
  • Environmental: “He is friendly and accessible.”

In the Legal 500 2016 James was rated in:

  • Administrative & Public Law: “His knowledge and expertise in public law is excellent”
  • Civil Liberties: “One of the best advocates”
  • EU & Competition: ”He has formidable intellect and is particularly strong on state aid regulation”
  • Environmental: “He provides excellent advice”

In Who’sWhoLegal 2017 and 2018 James was rated in the top 5 environmental law QCs. The 2017 version said  “ [he has] a “well-deserved reputation” handling a broad variety of matters including habitats and species protection, air quality and contaminated land, among other matters. One instructing solicitor responded: “James has excellent legal knowledge; he is very user-friendly, completely reliable and a pleasure to work with; in addition, James has always been very clear in his advice, outstanding with clients and an excellent advocate.”  The 2018 version said “The “excellent” James Maurici QC impresses commentators with his wide-ranging environmental practice, which covers a variety of matters including air quality, habits and species protection and climate change issues.”

He has regularly featured in the list of top-rated planning QCs in the annual Planning Magazine Law Survey. In the 2017 survey James was rated the 4th highest rated Planning Silk (jointly with David Elvin QC) with it being said “Maurici attracts praise for his ability to get to grips with “gnarly planning law and policy matters” and his ability to “combine knowledge, intellect and understanding of the legal and policy framework with an appreciation of commercial realities”. He has been lead counsel to the Department for Transport on airport expansion since 2011 and recently successfully struck out a judicial review sought by Greenpeace and several London boroughs attempting to block a third runway at Heathrow. Other victories include acting for the Homes and Communities Agency on a 1,000-home development near Northampton”. He was also rated the joint 4th top rated silk for residential development.

Inquiries

Inquiries

Chiswick Curve tall building inquiry closes

06/07/2018

The planning inquiry into a proposal for a 109m tall, 32 storey tower located at Chiswick Roundabout – known as “the Chiswick Curve” has closed today.

The proposal was refused planning permission by the London Borough of Hounslow in February 2017 for a number of reasons including harm to a range of designated heritage assets among them the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew World Heritage Site.

The appeal has been recovered by the Secretary of State and the inquiry has sat for the last 4 weeks.

Rule 6 parties include Historic England and the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew.

For press coverage please see here.

Russell Harris QC is appearing for the Appellant, Starbones Ltd., instructed by Linklaters LLP

James Maurici QC is appearing for the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew instructed by Burges Salmon LLP.

:

Inquiries

Inspector dismisses re-determined appeals in West Lancashire

23/03/2018

An Inspector (Kevin Ward BA (Hons) MRTPI) has dismissed two re-determined appeals by Redrow Homes Ltd and Wainhomes Developments Ltd for in total 400 houses in Aughton, West Lancashire.

On 19 August 2016 Wainhomes’ appeal had been allowed by the previous Inspector but this was quashed by the High Court, see: in R (West Lancashire Borough Council) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] EWHC 3451.

On 9 December 2016 the previous Inspector had refused Redrow’s appeal. This decision was quashed by the High Court by consent.

Both appeals fell to be re-determined and a re-opened conjoined inquiry was held on 30 – 31 January and 1 – 2 February 2018.

The Inspector concluded that West Lancashire had a 5 year supply of land.

He also concluded that in calculating completions of housing it was not appropriate to take account of losses of C3 uses (dwelling houses) to C4 uses (HMOs). The debate between the parties on this issue concerned the definition of communal establishments by the Office for National Statistics and in the 2011 census.

James Maurici QC acted for the successful local planning authority, West Lancashire Borough Council.

:

Inquiries

Wisley Airfield inquiry opens

19/09/2017

Today an inquiry opens into a recovered appeal seeking outline planning permission for:

“the phased development of a new settlement of up to 2,068 dwellings incorporating up to 60 sheltered accommodation units and 8 Gypsy and Traveller pitches and associated infrastructure including accesses onto the A3 (Ockham Interchange), Ockham Lane and Old Lane and revised access to Elm Corner, a secondary school, a primary school, community provision, nursery provision, health facility, a local centre (incorporating food & drink, retail, a visitor centre and offices), employment area, sports and recreational facilities (incorporating a floodlit sports pitch and pavilion). Sustainable drainage Systems and an area of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) incorporating a landform feature and car parking. The erection of associated utilities infrastructure. The development Proposal to incorporate the demolition/ removal of the runway and VOR Beacon (and any associated outbuildings). Outline application, matter for determination access (matters reserved scale, appearance, landscaping and layout”.

Wisley Airfield contains the largest previously developed Site within the Guildford Borough part of the Metropolitan Green Belt and is proposed to be removed from the Green Belt and allocated under draft Allocation A35 of the Proposed Submission Local Plan (‘GBLP’) for a residential and mixed use development.

The appeal is opposed by Guildford Borough Council and a number of other rule 6 parties and is expected to last 5 weeks.

James Maurici QC and Heather Sargent are acting for the appellant Wisley Property Investments Limited instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP.

:

Inquiries

Inspector allows appeal for outline permission for up to 150 houses at Moulsham Lane, Yately despite Hart DC showing a 5YLS

01/09/2016

Hart DC refused this outline application on 7 grounds including the fact that the site was located in one of the Strategic Gaps and the Blackwater Gap protected by policies CON19 and CON20 of the Local Plan. Following a 6 day inquiry the Inspector allowed the appeal. James Maurici QC acted for the appellant Wellbeck Strategic Land LLP.

:

Inquiries

Inspector finds West Lancashire to be a 5% authority

01/09/2016

An Inspector has found that West Lancashire need only apply a 5% buffer to its supply under para. 47 of the NPPF. The Inspector so found in concluding that West Lancashire did not have a 5YLS and that an appeal for up to 150 houses at land east of Prescot Road, Aughton, Ormskirk should be allowed despite a conflict with safeguarded land policies in the West Lancashire Local Plan. James Maurici QC acted for the LPA on a 4 day conjoined inquiry. The decision on the second appeal is awaited.

:

Inquiries

Planning Inspectorate APP/V2825/W/15/3140695: Bective Works / Jebez House, NN2 7TD

14/06/2016

Successfully acted for developers on appeal for the provision of purpose built Student Accommodation comprising 293 study bedrooms, following the demolition of the existing buildings comprising the Bective Works and Jebez House in Northampton. Please click here for the Appeal Decision.

:

Inquiries

Secretary of State grants permission for Northampton Sustainable Urban Extension

01/03/2016

The Secretary of State today allowed an appeal under s. 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and granted outline planning permission for “a sustainable urban extension to include up to 1,000 dwellings (class C3); a local centre with up to 1,320m2 net floorspace of retail, professional and financial services, and restaurants/ cafes (classes A1, A2 and A3); up to 375m2 net for a public house (class A4); 2.09ha of land for a two-form entry primary school; up to 750m2 for community uses which may include a medical centre, a pharmacy and a community centre (class D1); infrastructure improvements including a pumping station, green infrastructure and highway access” at land to the east of Hardingstone, Northampton.

The appellant was the Homes & Communities Agency.  The proposed sustainable urban extension was the subject of Policy N6 of the West Northamptonshire Core Strategy. The local planning authority refused planning permission based on the impact on character and appearance and traffic issues. An Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State held an inquiry that sat for 9 days in June and July 2015. The Secretary of State’s decision to allow the appeal and grant permission in agreement with the Inspector’s recommendation is dated 29 February 2016.

James Maurici QC and Toby Fisher appeared for the Homes and Communities Agency, the appellant, instructed by Walker Morris LLP.

Tim Corner QC and Heather Sargent appeared for Northampton Borough Council.

:

Inquiries

Recovered Part IIA contaminated land appeal opens

08/12/2015

On Tuesday 8 December 2015 an inquiry opens into an appeal by Jim 2 Limited (“Jim 2”) under section 78L(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”) against a remediation notice served on it by Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council on 17 March 2015 (“the Remediation Notice”). The Remediation Notice requires Jim 2 to de-contaminate the land enclosed within the domestic curtilages of 69 residential properties, which form part of the Stonegate Housing Estate, Walsall which forms part of the land formerly occupied by the Willenhall Town Gas Works. The contamination case focusses on Benzo(a)pyrene (“B(a)P”). B(a)P is commonly used as an indicator compound for the mixture of compounds found in combustion products like Gas Works waste . B(a)P is a persistent organic pollutant, which has been designated by the International Agency Research on Cancer as a Human Carcinogen (Group 1), which means that the evidence is sufficient to determine that the agent is carcinogenic to humans, as opposed to probably (Group 2A) or possibly (Group 2B) carcinogenic to humans.

The appeal is believed to be only the second ever made to the Secretary of State under s. 78L of the 1990 Act notwithstanding the regime having been in force for 15 years. The Secretary of State has recovered the appeal in recognition of “the potential policy implications for contaminated land law” and in “view of the challenges raised on the application of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and of the revised Statutory Guidance published in 2012. The appeal is expected to last 2 weeks.

James Maurici QC and Matthew Fraser are appearing for the Council, the enforcing authority.

:

Inquiries

Brentford Community Football Stadium CPO Inquiry

08/09/2015

Today the inquiry into the confirmation of a compulsory purchase order made by the London Borough of Hounslow for the provision of a new, 20,000 seat community football stadium for Brentford Football Club opened. The Club moved to its current stadium in Griffin Park, Brentford in 1904, and has long since outgrown this location. The CPO if confirmed will enable the regeneration of a site that is principally used for unattractive industrial and related uses, between Kew Bridge and the elevated M4 motorway. The redevelopment will include some 910 new homes, which will assist in enabling the development, as well as a hotel and other uses. The Club’s proposals have been lauded as bringing significant inward investment with regenerative benefits into a relatively isolated area of Brentford.

The inquiry is expected to run for two weeks.

James Maurici QC and Andrew Byass are appearing for the London Borough of Hounslow.

Russell Harris QC is acting for the Club.

Neil King QC and Matthew Dale-Harris are appearing for First Industrial Limited, one of the objectors to the CPO.

:

Inquiries

Sustainable Urban Extension, Northampton

16/06/2015

Acted for the Homes & Communities Agency in a recovered appeal for a Sustainable Urban Extension of 1000 houses, a local centre, school, community uses and other associated infrastructure at land east of Hardingstone, Northampton. The inquiry was in June 2015. Instructed by Walker Morris.

:

Inquiries

Housing Scheme, Crowborough

01/04/2015

Acted for the developer in a 3 week appeal for a housing scheme in Crowborough in the AONB and challenging Wealden Borough Council’s approach to SANG/SAMMS and nitrogen deposition in relation to the Ashdown Forest SAC/SPA.

:

Inquiries

Planning enforcement appeal

01/04/2015

Acted for a third party resident in a major planning enforcement appeal concerning unauthorised engineering, mining and building operations and unauthorised change of use of land to recreational fishing lakes and for waste disposal which involved importing some 450,000 cubic metres of waste on to the site. The case is related to the High Court decision in R (Padden) v Maidstone BC [2014] Env LR 20.

:

Inquiries

Secretary of State grants permission for called-in Swindon solar park

20/03/2015

The Secretary of State has granted planning permission for a large solar park at a former airfield at Wroughton, Swindon. The application was made by Swindon Commercial Services Limited and the Science Museum. The proposed ground mounted PV solar arrays would on a 67 hectare site would provide c. 40MW generation capacity. The application site lies within the North Downs AONB and was opposed by Natural England, the AONB Unit and English Heritage.

The proposals will generate enough renewable electricity for c 12,000 hones. In addition it would provide an income stream to assist the Science Museum with the preservation and conservation of 35,000 larger objects of national importance as well as half a million library and archive texts it stores in hangers on the former airfield. The items stored include a 140 tonne hot metal printing press, the world’s first Hydrogen fuel car, two Trident missiles, a number of airliners and the Tucker Snow Cat.

James Maurici QC appeared for the applicants, Swindon Commercial Services Limited and the Science Museum, instructed by Pegasus Planning.

Richard Clarke appeared for Swindon Borough Council.

Scott Lyness appeared for English Heritage.

For press coverage click here

:

Inquiries

Called-in Swindon solar park inquiry closes

19/09/2014

A called-in inquiry into a proposed large solar park at a former airfield at Wroughton, Swindon has now closed. The application was made by Swindon Commercial Services Limited and the Science Museum. The proposed ground mounted PV solar arrays would on a 67 hectare site would provide c. 40MW generation capacity. The application site lies within the North Downs AONB.

The proposals will generate enough renewable electricity for c 12,000 hones. In addition it would provide an income stream to assist the Science Museum with the preservation and conservation of 35,000 larger objects of national importance as well as half a million library and archive texts it stores in hangers on the former airfield. The items stored include a 140 tonne hot metal printing press, the world’s first Hydrogen fuel car, two Trident missiles, a number of airliners and the Tucker Snow Cat.

Swindon Borough Council resolved to grant planning permission in December 2013 but the application was called in by the Secretary of State.

The inquiry sat for 7 days commencing on Tuesday 9 September 2014 and closing on Friday 19 September 2014.

For press coverage, click here.

James Maurici QC appeared for the applicants instructed by Pegasus Planning.

Richard Clarke appeared for Swindon Borough Council.

Scott Lyness appeared for English Heritage.

:

Inquiries

Tottenham Hotspur CPO confirmed

15/07/2014

On 11 July 2014 the Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government confirmed the London Borough of Haringey (Northumberland Development Project) (No 1) Compulsory Purchase Order 2012.

The Order authorises the compulsory purchase of lands at Paxton Road, High Road and Bill Nicholson Way, Tottenham, London N17 for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out of development, redevelopment or improvement of the land comprising the demolition of existing buildings and comprehensive redevelopment to provide a new stadium and ancillary uses such as Club museum; shop and offices for the Tottenham Hotspur Foundation; residential; college and/or health centre and/or health club uses; and public realm improvements.

For press coverage click here.

A copy of the decision letter can be found here.

Tim Corner QC and Christopher Katkowski QC appeared at the inquiry for Haringey Borough Council and Tottenham Hotspur Football Club.

James Maurici QC acted for Tottenham Hotspur Football Club on State aid issues.

Christopher Lockhart-Mummery QC appeared at the inquiry for the one remaining objector, the Josif family and Archway Sheet Metal Works Limited, instructed by Paul Winter & Co.

Stephen Whale represented the Secretary of State.

:

Inquiries

Barrow housing scheme

24/02/2014

Successfully acting on appeal for the Barrowlands Company in securing a 504 house scheme in Barrow, in the Ribble Valley.

Click here for more information.

:

Inquiries

Ribble Valley Borough Council Core Strategy Examination Hearings to begin

13/01/2014

On 14th January the examination hearings begin in relation to the Ribble Valley Borough Council Core Strategy 2008 – 2028 A local Plan for Ribble Valley.

The hearings are scheduled throughout January http://www.ribblevalley.gov.uk/downloads/file/9123/hearing_programme-attendees_final

James Maurici QC is appearing for the Barrow Lands Company Limited (“BLCL”) instructed by David Lock Associates. He has also appeared for BLCL at two recent recovered appeals for 504 and 190 houses on land at Whalley Road, Barrow.

:

Inquiries

Walshaw Moor Estate Inquiry

10/01/2012

On Tuesday 10th January 2012 an inquiry opened into an appeal by Walshaw Moor Estate in respect of a notice of modification of consent issued by Natural England under s. 28E(6) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

The Appellant either owns or has the benefit of sporting rights leased to it over approximately 6475ha of Walshaw Moor and Lancashire Moor. It mainly manages the land as a driven grouse moor. The challenged notice of modification of consent seeks significantly to restrict certain management activities such as prescribed burning of heather and grazing.

The land in question forms part of the South Pennine Moors SSSI, the South Pennine Moors SAC and the South Pennine Moors SPA. The inquiry will examine not only important questions of moorland ecology, grazing and burning of heather for grouse rearing, in areas of blanket bog and heathland habitats, but also the Secretary of State’s powers and duties under the Habitats Directive and Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Despite earlier contrary statements, Natural England now seeks to ban all burning on blanket bog, whether previously burned or not.

The inquiry is due to sit until 4 February 2012.

David Elvin QC, James Maurici and Richard Moules are appearing for the Appellant.

:

Inquiries

Wightlink Public Inquiry

29/11/2011

Following the High Court judgment in Akester [2010] EWHC 232 (Admin), applications for shore and recharge works for the Wightlink ferry service from Lymington to Yarmouth on the Isle of Wight were submitted, the entire project comprising those works and the running of the ferries. The recharge works to take place on SPA habitats in close proximity to the ferry route would ensure that the works to recharge degrading saltmarsh and mudflat habitat (which would be lost to natural forces in any event over the medium term) would offset the impact from the ferries and protect the SPA habitat for many years longer than they would survive naturally.

Following negotiations over a flexible adaptive and monitoring mechanism to ensure the efficacy of the recharge works, Natural England and the local authorities withdrew their opposition to the project. A two week inquiry was held in October 2011 at which opposition was maintained by the Lymington River Association and others. Today the Inspector issued her decision letter granting planning permission and agreeing that the project taken as a whole (including the recharge works and the adaptive mechanism) would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA under the Habitats Regulations 2010 and the Habitats Directive, having carried out an appropriate assessment. The Inspector also accepted, in the planning context (though not in terms of the appropriate assessment) that the economic and social importance of the ferries to the Isle of Wight was considerable and a weighty consideration in favour of the grant of permission.

David Elvin QC and James Maurici represented Wightlink Limited.

:

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

Hambleton Allocations DPD Examination for the promoter of a site (Mr Carl Les) for a Motorway Service Area on the A1(M) at Leeming Bar

01/05/2010

:

Inquiries

Appearing for Galliard Homes in an inquiry into a mixed use scheme consisting of 209 flats together with live/work units offices

01/04/2010

:

Inquiries

Pitshill Estate footpath orders

01/06/2009

James Maurici successfully acted for the Hon. Charles Pearson in promoting an order to divert and extinguish various footpaths and bridleways at the Pitshill Estate, near Petworth. The orders were confirmed despite continued objection from the County Council, the Ramblers and Open Spaces Society. For media coverage click here.

:

Inquiries

Residential scheme at Draper’s Yard in Thurrock

01/04/2009

James Maurici is acting for Fairview Homes on inquiry in respect of a 235 unit residential scheme at Draper’s Yard in Thurrock.

:

Inquiries

Bedfont Road, East Bedfont, Middlesex

08/01/2009

The Secretary of State today agreed with the recommendation of her Inspector and granted planning permission on a called-in application for the redevelopment of existing industrial, storage and related uses to provide an industrial and warehousing estate in the Green Belt at Bedfont Road, East Bedfont, Middlesex, London, TW14 8EE.

The existing uses occupying the land were in large part unauthorised but had become immune. The existing uses had developed in a haphazard manner. They were unsightly, noisy and wholly uncontrolled. The Inspector and Secretary of State considered that significant weight could be attached to the fact that the proposals would replace these uses with a modern well designed industrial and warehousing estate meeting modern efficiency and sustainability standards. They also attached substantial weight to a wide-ranging package of environmental improvements to, and uses of, open land surrounding the estate. It was concluded that but for Green Belt issues the proposals were supported by the Development Plan. The view taken was that the merits of the proposed development would clearly outweigh harm to the Green Belt.

See for media coverage, please click here.

James Maurici appeared for the LB of Hounslow which supported the grant of planning permission.

:

Inquiries

The Welsh Minister for the Environment, Planning and Countryside makes decision on first ever Greenhouse Gas Emissions civil penalty appeal

06/03/2008

Alphasteel Limited, which carries out steel production at Corporation Road, Newport, appealed pursuant to reg. 32(3)(e) of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Regulations 2005 (“the 2005 Regulations”) against a civil penalty notice dated 6 December 2006 served by the Environment Agency because Alphasteel failed to comply with a condition imposed pursuant to reg. 10(3) of the 2005 Regulations. This required Alphasteel to surrender allowances equal to the annual reportable emissions from its installation by the end of April 2006.
The 2005 Regulations implement Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a

scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Community. The scheme is the largest multi-country, multi-sector greenhouse gas emission trading scheme world-wide.

This is believed to be the first ever appeal in the UK (or indeed in Europe) against such a civil penalty notice.

An appeal hearing took place in the summer of 2007 and on 6 March 2008 the Welsh Ministers issued a decision affirming the notice and requiring Alphasteel to pay the penalty of £564,599.93 plus interest.

James Maurici appeared for the Environment Agency.

:

Inquiries

Bedfont Trading Estate Green Belt call-in for the London Borough of Hounslow

01/01/2008

:

Inquiries

London Concrete Batching Plant, Cranfield Way Industrial Estate for London Borough of Haringey

05/12/2007

:

Inquiries

Victoria Way for Galliard Homes

01/01/2006

Recovered appeal for a mixed-use scheme, including 283 apartments.

:

Inquiries

Symes Avenue, Bristol. CPO for Bristol City Council

01/01/2005

:

Inquiries

Twickenham Riverside call-in for London Borough of Richmond

01/01/2004

:

Inquiries

Newton Home Office Asylum Accommodation Centre for Rushcliffe Borough Council

01/01/2003

:

Inquiries

Bicester Home Office Asylum Accommodation Centre for Cherwell District Council

01/01/2002

:

Inquiries

Banbury Lane, Northampton call in for English Partnerships

01/01/2001

Call-in inquiry for outline permission for a 6.8 hectare residential development.

:

Inquiries

Didcot Town Centre CPO for South Oxfordshire District Council

01/01/2001

:

Inquiries

Chiswick Curve tall building inquiry closes

06/07/2018

The planning inquiry into a proposal for a 109m tall, 32 storey tower located at Chiswick Roundabout – known as “the Chiswick Curve” has closed today.

The proposal was refused planning permission by the London Borough of Hounslow in February 2017 for a number of reasons including harm to a range of designated heritage assets among them the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew World Heritage Site.

The appeal has been recovered by the Secretary of State and the inquiry has sat for the last 4 weeks.

Rule 6 parties include Historic England and the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew.

For press coverage please see here.

Russell Harris QC is appearing for the Appellant, Starbones Ltd., instructed by Linklaters LLP

James Maurici QC is appearing for the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew instructed by Burges Salmon LLP.

:

Inquiries

Inspector dismisses re-determined appeals in West Lancashire

23/03/2018

An Inspector (Kevin Ward BA (Hons) MRTPI) has dismissed two re-determined appeals by Redrow Homes Ltd and Wainhomes Developments Ltd for in total 400 houses in Aughton, West Lancashire.

On 19 August 2016 Wainhomes’ appeal had been allowed by the previous Inspector but this was quashed by the High Court, see: in R (West Lancashire Borough Council) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] EWHC 3451.

On 9 December 2016 the previous Inspector had refused Redrow’s appeal. This decision was quashed by the High Court by consent.

Both appeals fell to be re-determined and a re-opened conjoined inquiry was held on 30 – 31 January and 1 – 2 February 2018.

The Inspector concluded that West Lancashire had a 5 year supply of land.

He also concluded that in calculating completions of housing it was not appropriate to take account of losses of C3 uses (dwelling houses) to C4 uses (HMOs). The debate between the parties on this issue concerned the definition of communal establishments by the Office for National Statistics and in the 2011 census.

James Maurici QC acted for the successful local planning authority, West Lancashire Borough Council.

:

Inquiries

Wisley Airfield inquiry opens

19/09/2017

Today an inquiry opens into a recovered appeal seeking outline planning permission for:

“the phased development of a new settlement of up to 2,068 dwellings incorporating up to 60 sheltered accommodation units and 8 Gypsy and Traveller pitches and associated infrastructure including accesses onto the A3 (Ockham Interchange), Ockham Lane and Old Lane and revised access to Elm Corner, a secondary school, a primary school, community provision, nursery provision, health facility, a local centre (incorporating food & drink, retail, a visitor centre and offices), employment area, sports and recreational facilities (incorporating a floodlit sports pitch and pavilion). Sustainable drainage Systems and an area of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) incorporating a landform feature and car parking. The erection of associated utilities infrastructure. The development Proposal to incorporate the demolition/ removal of the runway and VOR Beacon (and any associated outbuildings). Outline application, matter for determination access (matters reserved scale, appearance, landscaping and layout”.

Wisley Airfield contains the largest previously developed Site within the Guildford Borough part of the Metropolitan Green Belt and is proposed to be removed from the Green Belt and allocated under draft Allocation A35 of the Proposed Submission Local Plan (‘GBLP’) for a residential and mixed use development.

The appeal is opposed by Guildford Borough Council and a number of other rule 6 parties and is expected to last 5 weeks.

James Maurici QC and Heather Sargent are acting for the appellant Wisley Property Investments Limited instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP.

:

Inquiries

Inspector allows appeal for outline permission for up to 150 houses at Moulsham Lane, Yately despite Hart DC showing a 5YLS

01/09/2016

Hart DC refused this outline application on 7 grounds including the fact that the site was located in one of the Strategic Gaps and the Blackwater Gap protected by policies CON19 and CON20 of the Local Plan. Following a 6 day inquiry the Inspector allowed the appeal. James Maurici QC acted for the appellant Wellbeck Strategic Land LLP.

:

Inquiries

Inspector finds West Lancashire to be a 5% authority

01/09/2016

An Inspector has found that West Lancashire need only apply a 5% buffer to its supply under para. 47 of the NPPF. The Inspector so found in concluding that West Lancashire did not have a 5YLS and that an appeal for up to 150 houses at land east of Prescot Road, Aughton, Ormskirk should be allowed despite a conflict with safeguarded land policies in the West Lancashire Local Plan. James Maurici QC acted for the LPA on a 4 day conjoined inquiry. The decision on the second appeal is awaited.

:

Inquiries

Planning Inspectorate APP/V2825/W/15/3140695: Bective Works / Jebez House, NN2 7TD

14/06/2016

Successfully acted for developers on appeal for the provision of purpose built Student Accommodation comprising 293 study bedrooms, following the demolition of the existing buildings comprising the Bective Works and Jebez House in Northampton. Please click here for the Appeal Decision.

:

Inquiries

Secretary of State grants permission for Northampton Sustainable Urban Extension

01/03/2016

The Secretary of State today allowed an appeal under s. 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and granted outline planning permission for “a sustainable urban extension to include up to 1,000 dwellings (class C3); a local centre with up to 1,320m2 net floorspace of retail, professional and financial services, and restaurants/ cafes (classes A1, A2 and A3); up to 375m2 net for a public house (class A4); 2.09ha of land for a two-form entry primary school; up to 750m2 for community uses which may include a medical centre, a pharmacy and a community centre (class D1); infrastructure improvements including a pumping station, green infrastructure and highway access” at land to the east of Hardingstone, Northampton.

The appellant was the Homes & Communities Agency.  The proposed sustainable urban extension was the subject of Policy N6 of the West Northamptonshire Core Strategy. The local planning authority refused planning permission based on the impact on character and appearance and traffic issues. An Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State held an inquiry that sat for 9 days in June and July 2015. The Secretary of State’s decision to allow the appeal and grant permission in agreement with the Inspector’s recommendation is dated 29 February 2016.

James Maurici QC and Toby Fisher appeared for the Homes and Communities Agency, the appellant, instructed by Walker Morris LLP.

Tim Corner QC and Heather Sargent appeared for Northampton Borough Council.

:

Inquiries

Recovered Part IIA contaminated land appeal opens

08/12/2015

On Tuesday 8 December 2015 an inquiry opens into an appeal by Jim 2 Limited (“Jim 2”) under section 78L(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”) against a remediation notice served on it by Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council on 17 March 2015 (“the Remediation Notice”). The Remediation Notice requires Jim 2 to de-contaminate the land enclosed within the domestic curtilages of 69 residential properties, which form part of the Stonegate Housing Estate, Walsall which forms part of the land formerly occupied by the Willenhall Town Gas Works. The contamination case focusses on Benzo(a)pyrene (“B(a)P”). B(a)P is commonly used as an indicator compound for the mixture of compounds found in combustion products like Gas Works waste . B(a)P is a persistent organic pollutant, which has been designated by the International Agency Research on Cancer as a Human Carcinogen (Group 1), which means that the evidence is sufficient to determine that the agent is carcinogenic to humans, as opposed to probably (Group 2A) or possibly (Group 2B) carcinogenic to humans.

The appeal is believed to be only the second ever made to the Secretary of State under s. 78L of the 1990 Act notwithstanding the regime having been in force for 15 years. The Secretary of State has recovered the appeal in recognition of “the potential policy implications for contaminated land law” and in “view of the challenges raised on the application of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and of the revised Statutory Guidance published in 2012. The appeal is expected to last 2 weeks.

James Maurici QC and Matthew Fraser are appearing for the Council, the enforcing authority.

:

Inquiries

Brentford Community Football Stadium CPO Inquiry

08/09/2015

Today the inquiry into the confirmation of a compulsory purchase order made by the London Borough of Hounslow for the provision of a new, 20,000 seat community football stadium for Brentford Football Club opened. The Club moved to its current stadium in Griffin Park, Brentford in 1904, and has long since outgrown this location. The CPO if confirmed will enable the regeneration of a site that is principally used for unattractive industrial and related uses, between Kew Bridge and the elevated M4 motorway. The redevelopment will include some 910 new homes, which will assist in enabling the development, as well as a hotel and other uses. The Club’s proposals have been lauded as bringing significant inward investment with regenerative benefits into a relatively isolated area of Brentford.

The inquiry is expected to run for two weeks.

James Maurici QC and Andrew Byass are appearing for the London Borough of Hounslow.

Russell Harris QC is acting for the Club.

Neil King QC and Matthew Dale-Harris are appearing for First Industrial Limited, one of the objectors to the CPO.

:

Inquiries

Sustainable Urban Extension, Northampton

16/06/2015

Acted for the Homes & Communities Agency in a recovered appeal for a Sustainable Urban Extension of 1000 houses, a local centre, school, community uses and other associated infrastructure at land east of Hardingstone, Northampton. The inquiry was in June 2015. Instructed by Walker Morris.

:

Inquiries

Housing Scheme, Crowborough

01/04/2015

Acted for the developer in a 3 week appeal for a housing scheme in Crowborough in the AONB and challenging Wealden Borough Council’s approach to SANG/SAMMS and nitrogen deposition in relation to the Ashdown Forest SAC/SPA.

:

Inquiries

Planning enforcement appeal

01/04/2015

Acted for a third party resident in a major planning enforcement appeal concerning unauthorised engineering, mining and building operations and unauthorised change of use of land to recreational fishing lakes and for waste disposal which involved importing some 450,000 cubic metres of waste on to the site. The case is related to the High Court decision in R (Padden) v Maidstone BC [2014] Env LR 20.

:

Inquiries

Secretary of State grants permission for called-in Swindon solar park

20/03/2015

The Secretary of State has granted planning permission for a large solar park at a former airfield at Wroughton, Swindon. The application was made by Swindon Commercial Services Limited and the Science Museum. The proposed ground mounted PV solar arrays would on a 67 hectare site would provide c. 40MW generation capacity. The application site lies within the North Downs AONB and was opposed by Natural England, the AONB Unit and English Heritage.

The proposals will generate enough renewable electricity for c 12,000 hones. In addition it would provide an income stream to assist the Science Museum with the preservation and conservation of 35,000 larger objects of national importance as well as half a million library and archive texts it stores in hangers on the former airfield. The items stored include a 140 tonne hot metal printing press, the world’s first Hydrogen fuel car, two Trident missiles, a number of airliners and the Tucker Snow Cat.

James Maurici QC appeared for the applicants, Swindon Commercial Services Limited and the Science Museum, instructed by Pegasus Planning.

Richard Clarke appeared for Swindon Borough Council.

Scott Lyness appeared for English Heritage.

For press coverage click here

:

Inquiries

Called-in Swindon solar park inquiry closes

19/09/2014

A called-in inquiry into a proposed large solar park at a former airfield at Wroughton, Swindon has now closed. The application was made by Swindon Commercial Services Limited and the Science Museum. The proposed ground mounted PV solar arrays would on a 67 hectare site would provide c. 40MW generation capacity. The application site lies within the North Downs AONB.

The proposals will generate enough renewable electricity for c 12,000 hones. In addition it would provide an income stream to assist the Science Museum with the preservation and conservation of 35,000 larger objects of national importance as well as half a million library and archive texts it stores in hangers on the former airfield. The items stored include a 140 tonne hot metal printing press, the world’s first Hydrogen fuel car, two Trident missiles, a number of airliners and the Tucker Snow Cat.

Swindon Borough Council resolved to grant planning permission in December 2013 but the application was called in by the Secretary of State.

The inquiry sat for 7 days commencing on Tuesday 9 September 2014 and closing on Friday 19 September 2014.

For press coverage, click here.

James Maurici QC appeared for the applicants instructed by Pegasus Planning.

Richard Clarke appeared for Swindon Borough Council.

Scott Lyness appeared for English Heritage.

:

Inquiries

Tottenham Hotspur CPO confirmed

15/07/2014

On 11 July 2014 the Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government confirmed the London Borough of Haringey (Northumberland Development Project) (No 1) Compulsory Purchase Order 2012.

The Order authorises the compulsory purchase of lands at Paxton Road, High Road and Bill Nicholson Way, Tottenham, London N17 for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out of development, redevelopment or improvement of the land comprising the demolition of existing buildings and comprehensive redevelopment to provide a new stadium and ancillary uses such as Club museum; shop and offices for the Tottenham Hotspur Foundation; residential; college and/or health centre and/or health club uses; and public realm improvements.

For press coverage click here.

A copy of the decision letter can be found here.

Tim Corner QC and Christopher Katkowski QC appeared at the inquiry for Haringey Borough Council and Tottenham Hotspur Football Club.

James Maurici QC acted for Tottenham Hotspur Football Club on State aid issues.

Christopher Lockhart-Mummery QC appeared at the inquiry for the one remaining objector, the Josif family and Archway Sheet Metal Works Limited, instructed by Paul Winter & Co.

Stephen Whale represented the Secretary of State.

:

Inquiries

Barrow housing scheme

24/02/2014

Successfully acting on appeal for the Barrowlands Company in securing a 504 house scheme in Barrow, in the Ribble Valley.

Click here for more information.

:

Inquiries

Ribble Valley Borough Council Core Strategy Examination Hearings to begin

13/01/2014

On 14th January the examination hearings begin in relation to the Ribble Valley Borough Council Core Strategy 2008 – 2028 A local Plan for Ribble Valley.

The hearings are scheduled throughout January http://www.ribblevalley.gov.uk/downloads/file/9123/hearing_programme-attendees_final

James Maurici QC is appearing for the Barrow Lands Company Limited (“BLCL”) instructed by David Lock Associates. He has also appeared for BLCL at two recent recovered appeals for 504 and 190 houses on land at Whalley Road, Barrow.

:

Inquiries

Walshaw Moor Estate Inquiry

10/01/2012

On Tuesday 10th January 2012 an inquiry opened into an appeal by Walshaw Moor Estate in respect of a notice of modification of consent issued by Natural England under s. 28E(6) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

The Appellant either owns or has the benefit of sporting rights leased to it over approximately 6475ha of Walshaw Moor and Lancashire Moor. It mainly manages the land as a driven grouse moor. The challenged notice of modification of consent seeks significantly to restrict certain management activities such as prescribed burning of heather and grazing.

The land in question forms part of the South Pennine Moors SSSI, the South Pennine Moors SAC and the South Pennine Moors SPA. The inquiry will examine not only important questions of moorland ecology, grazing and burning of heather for grouse rearing, in areas of blanket bog and heathland habitats, but also the Secretary of State’s powers and duties under the Habitats Directive and Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Despite earlier contrary statements, Natural England now seeks to ban all burning on blanket bog, whether previously burned or not.

The inquiry is due to sit until 4 February 2012.

David Elvin QC, James Maurici and Richard Moules are appearing for the Appellant.

:

Inquiries

Wightlink Public Inquiry

29/11/2011

Following the High Court judgment in Akester [2010] EWHC 232 (Admin), applications for shore and recharge works for the Wightlink ferry service from Lymington to Yarmouth on the Isle of Wight were submitted, the entire project comprising those works and the running of the ferries. The recharge works to take place on SPA habitats in close proximity to the ferry route would ensure that the works to recharge degrading saltmarsh and mudflat habitat (which would be lost to natural forces in any event over the medium term) would offset the impact from the ferries and protect the SPA habitat for many years longer than they would survive naturally.

Following negotiations over a flexible adaptive and monitoring mechanism to ensure the efficacy of the recharge works, Natural England and the local authorities withdrew their opposition to the project. A two week inquiry was held in October 2011 at which opposition was maintained by the Lymington River Association and others. Today the Inspector issued her decision letter granting planning permission and agreeing that the project taken as a whole (including the recharge works and the adaptive mechanism) would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA under the Habitats Regulations 2010 and the Habitats Directive, having carried out an appropriate assessment. The Inspector also accepted, in the planning context (though not in terms of the appropriate assessment) that the economic and social importance of the ferries to the Isle of Wight was considerable and a weighty consideration in favour of the grant of permission.

David Elvin QC and James Maurici represented Wightlink Limited.

:

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

Hambleton Allocations DPD Examination for the promoter of a site (Mr Carl Les) for a Motorway Service Area on the A1(M) at Leeming Bar

01/05/2010

:

Inquiries

Appearing for Galliard Homes in an inquiry into a mixed use scheme consisting of 209 flats together with live/work units offices

01/04/2010

:

Inquiries

Pitshill Estate footpath orders

01/06/2009

James Maurici successfully acted for the Hon. Charles Pearson in promoting an order to divert and extinguish various footpaths and bridleways at the Pitshill Estate, near Petworth. The orders were confirmed despite continued objection from the County Council, the Ramblers and Open Spaces Society. For media coverage click here.

:

Inquiries

Residential scheme at Draper’s Yard in Thurrock

01/04/2009

James Maurici is acting for Fairview Homes on inquiry in respect of a 235 unit residential scheme at Draper’s Yard in Thurrock.

:

Inquiries

Bedfont Road, East Bedfont, Middlesex

08/01/2009

The Secretary of State today agreed with the recommendation of her Inspector and granted planning permission on a called-in application for the redevelopment of existing industrial, storage and related uses to provide an industrial and warehousing estate in the Green Belt at Bedfont Road, East Bedfont, Middlesex, London, TW14 8EE.

The existing uses occupying the land were in large part unauthorised but had become immune. The existing uses had developed in a haphazard manner. They were unsightly, noisy and wholly uncontrolled. The Inspector and Secretary of State considered that significant weight could be attached to the fact that the proposals would replace these uses with a modern well designed industrial and warehousing estate meeting modern efficiency and sustainability standards. They also attached substantial weight to a wide-ranging package of environmental improvements to, and uses of, open land surrounding the estate. It was concluded that but for Green Belt issues the proposals were supported by the Development Plan. The view taken was that the merits of the proposed development would clearly outweigh harm to the Green Belt.

See for media coverage, please click here.

James Maurici appeared for the LB of Hounslow which supported the grant of planning permission.

:

Inquiries

The Welsh Minister for the Environment, Planning and Countryside makes decision on first ever Greenhouse Gas Emissions civil penalty appeal

06/03/2008

Alphasteel Limited, which carries out steel production at Corporation Road, Newport, appealed pursuant to reg. 32(3)(e) of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Regulations 2005 (“the 2005 Regulations”) against a civil penalty notice dated 6 December 2006 served by the Environment Agency because Alphasteel failed to comply with a condition imposed pursuant to reg. 10(3) of the 2005 Regulations. This required Alphasteel to surrender allowances equal to the annual reportable emissions from its installation by the end of April 2006.
The 2005 Regulations implement Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a

scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Community. The scheme is the largest multi-country, multi-sector greenhouse gas emission trading scheme world-wide.

This is believed to be the first ever appeal in the UK (or indeed in Europe) against such a civil penalty notice.

An appeal hearing took place in the summer of 2007 and on 6 March 2008 the Welsh Ministers issued a decision affirming the notice and requiring Alphasteel to pay the penalty of £564,599.93 plus interest.

James Maurici appeared for the Environment Agency.

:

Inquiries

Bedfont Trading Estate Green Belt call-in for the London Borough of Hounslow

01/01/2008

:

Inquiries

London Concrete Batching Plant, Cranfield Way Industrial Estate for London Borough of Haringey

05/12/2007

:

Inquiries

Victoria Way for Galliard Homes

01/01/2006

Recovered appeal for a mixed-use scheme, including 283 apartments.

:

Inquiries

Symes Avenue, Bristol. CPO for Bristol City Council

01/01/2005

:

Inquiries

Twickenham Riverside call-in for London Borough of Richmond

01/01/2004

:

Inquiries

Newton Home Office Asylum Accommodation Centre for Rushcliffe Borough Council

01/01/2003

:

Inquiries

Bicester Home Office Asylum Accommodation Centre for Cherwell District Council

01/01/2002

:

Inquiries

Banbury Lane, Northampton call in for English Partnerships

01/01/2001

Call-in inquiry for outline permission for a 6.8 hectare residential development.

:

Inquiries

Didcot Town Centre CPO for South Oxfordshire District Council

01/01/2001

:
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