Featured documents
R (Greyhound Board of Great Britain Ltd) v Welsh Ministers [2026] EWHC 670 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling reinforces the constitutional divide between the courts and the legislature. It explains that the scheme and framework of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GWA 2006) embody that separation of powers, and that any judicial attempt to recognise and enforce a common law obligation on Welsh Ministers to consult prior to introducing legislation in the Senedd would trespass upon that boundary. This is not a departure from established principle; case law has already upheld comparable rules for lawmakers in Scotland and at Westminster. However, this is the first express confirmation of the position for Welsh lawmakers, and the first time this dimension of the GWA 2006 has been analysed in such depth. The court examined earlier
The solution arrived through the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), a quasi‑judicial body handling mass claims, created under UN Security Council Resolution 687. By addressing environmental harm—most notably via its ‘F4’ claim class—the UNCC set a seminal benchmark shaping how international law and contemporary arbitral panels allocate financial responsibility for wartime ecological devastation. With present-day wars in areas such as Eastern Europe and the Middle East bringing dam breaches, strikes on chemical facilities, and the burning of farmland, the UNCC’s legacy endures as an essential reference point for states, global investors, and companies engaged in post‑conflict arbitration. The F4 claims: Quantifying the unquantifiable Prior to the 1990s, mechanisms in international law for war reparations overwhelmingly favoured property loss, foregone earnings, and bodily injury. The natural world was commonly treated as a mute, non-compensable victim of armed hostilities...
Understanding the farming business as a business Many farms still use long-standing structures that arose by habit, not strategy. Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common. While once effective, such setups can cause major issues around succession, tax planning and involving the next generation. A corporate team can take a fresh, business-led view of the farm, asking: Who owns the land and other critical assets? Who manages daily operations? Who carries the risk and who enjoys the return? What is the enduring plan for succession? From this review, the team can confirm whether the current setup is fit for purpose or if an alternative — for example an updated partnership agreement, a company, a limited liability partnership, or a blended model — would better meet the family’s aims. Tax efficiency through joined-up advice Tax sits at the centre of most
Most recent News
In this issue: Planning applications and decisions Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Planning for nationally significant infrastructure Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Related Documents Planning applications and decisions Planning inspector’s refusal of solar park not procedurally unfair ( R ( Low Carbon Solar Park 6 Ltd) v (1) SSLUHC (2) Uttlesford DC) In R ( Low Carbon Solar Park 6 Ltd) v SSLUHC [2024] EWHC 770 ( Admin), His Honour Judge Jarman KC rejected the claimant’s statutory challenge to an inspector’s decision refusing its planning application for the development and operation of a solar park at Pelham, Manuden. The claimant contended that the inspector acted with procedural unfairness by not taking into account responsive evidence lodged after the close of the representations window. The judgment serves as a warning to applicants about the need to...
R ( Low Carbon Solar Park 6 Ltd v (1) Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities (2) Uttlesford District Council [2024] EWHC 770 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? An inspector deciding a planning application under the TCPA 1990, s 62A may, by virtue of reg 6 of the Town and Country Planning ( Section 62A Applications) Written Representations and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2013 ( SI 2013/2142), decline to take account of any representations or material lodged after the representation period has closed. If an inspector does this, the issue is whether it amounts to procedural unfairness. HHJ Jarman restated the orthodox position that fairness is a fact-sensitive concept, dependent on the specific circumstances of each case. On the facts here, the inspector’s choice not to consider the claimant’s rebuttal statement did not result in...
R (on the application of Suffolk Energy Action Solutions SPV Ltd) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero [2024] EWCA Civ 277 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision was highly consequential for the sector. Had the Court of Appeal upheld the claim on the basis that land acquisition agreements featuring non‑objection clauses were unlawful due to ‘stifling’, established industry practice would have been significantly disrupted. Government guidance treats compulsory purchase powers as a last resort, so those considering such powers are encouraged to negotiate with landowners and secure acquisition by agreement. In that setting, it is common to offer incentive payments to encourage early commitment, to avoid resorting to compulsory purchase, and to oblige the landowner not to object to the scheme and/or to retract any objection already made. Any such contract is entered into by the...
In this issue: Planning policy Obtaining, amending and implementing planning permission Nationally significant infrastructure projects Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Related Documents Planning policy Chief Planner’s planning update newsletter for April 2024 published The Chief Planner, Joanna Averley, has released the April 2024 planning update, aimed at chief planning officers across local planning authorities ( LPAs). It highlights: the cessation of the small sites exemption for biodiversity net gain; a consultation on an accelerated planning system; the introduction of a planning inspectorate appeals casework portal; the second round of the Local Nutrient Mitigation Fund; and the government’s response to the consultation on reforms to the operation of the nationally significant infrastructure project consenting process. See: LNB News 16/04/2024 26......
In this issue: Key developments and highlights Compulsory purchase Planning issues in energy projects Planning applications and decisions Building regulations Planning policy Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Related Documents Key developments and highlights Further provisions of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 to come into force The Planning Act 2008 ( Commencement No 8) and Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 ( Commencement No 4 and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2024, SI 2024/452, were made on 2 April 2024. From 25 April 2024 these Regulations commence a range of provisions in the Planning Act 2008 ( PA 2008) and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 ( LURA 2023), chiefly concerning planning and listed building enforcement, including measures that: lengthen the period for English local planning authorities ( LPAs) to take enforcement action from four to ten years in all cases enable LPAs in England to serve temporary stop notices lasting 56 days (rather than the...
In this issue: Biodiversity Development consent orders Building regulations Lex Talk®Planning: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Related Documents Biodiversity Temporary exemption from BNG for small developments ends The grace period exempting small schemes from biodiversity net gain ( BNG) rules has now ceased. Planning permission applications submitted on or after 2 April 2024 are not exempt and must satisfy the biodiversity gain condition, meaning the biodiversity value credited to the scheme must surpass the pre-development biodiversity value of the on-site habitat by a minimum of 10% in order to proceed lawfully through the process......
In this issue: Planning appeals Biodiversity Compulsory purchase Planning for nationally significant infrastructure projects Green belt Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Related Documents Planning appeals PINS confirms its position on issuing decisions during the election period The Planning Inspectorate ( PINS) has confirmed that, ahead of the May 2024 local government elections, it will not issue appeal decisions, reports or advisory letters in any case or examination where known candidates have made representations. This pause applies during the election period from 11 April 2024 to 2 May 2024, unless a statutory timetable duty applies. The approach is intended to avoid any suggestion that PINS has influenced the election or been used for electoral gain by any interested body. See: LNB News 26/03/2024...
In this issue: Obtaining, amending and implementing planning permission Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Nationally significant infrastructure projects Planning policy Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Latest Q& A Related Documents Obtaining, amending and implementing planning permission Court considers the question of discharge of pre-commencement conditions ( Lisle- Mainwaring v RBKC) In Lisle- Mainwaring v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2024] EWHC 440 ( Admin), the court dismissed the contention that a local planning authority ( LPA) may decline to determine an application to discharge a condition if the decision is taken after the relevant planning permission has expired. It held that the broader rule—that an LPA’s ongoing duty to determine applications for planning permission and for reserved matters—equally applies to approvals required by planning conditions. This remains the position where an...
R (on the application of Lisle- Mainwaring) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2024] EWHC 440 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling offers a timely reminder of several well-established legal principles. First, following Mansell [2017], where a challenge concerns advice in a planning officer’s report, the test is whether, on a fair and holistic reading, members were materially misled on an issue relevant to the decision and the mistake was not corrected before it was taken. The court confirmed that this approach equally applies where members rely on oral statements made at committee, which add to the written report unless they are correcting it. Secondly, in light of Friends of the Earth [2020], a decision-maker is not obliged to traverse every matter that could conceivably be considered relevant and then expressly rule it out; they need not work through all...
In this issue: Environmental impact assessment Planning policy Permitted development Planning for nationally significant infrastructure Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Q& As Related Documents Environmental impact assessment Court of Appeal rejects bid to overturn DCOs for A47 upgrades near Norwich ( Boswell v SST) In R (on the application of Boswell) v Secretary of State for Transport and another [2024] EWCA Civ 145, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing Dr Boswell’s challenge. The High Court had found no error of law in the Secretary of State’s grant of three development consent orders ( DCOs) for improvements to the A47 close to Norwich. The appellate court concluded that the Infrastructure Planning ( Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, SI 2017/572 oblige the decision-maker to consider the likely significant...
Marks and Spencer plc v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and others [2024] EWHC 452 ( Admin) What did the court decide? This legal challenge by M& S concerned the Secretary of State’s refusal of permission to demolish its Oxford Street flagship and replace it with a new nine storey mixed office and retail scheme. M& S succeeded on five of the six grounds. The High Court found the decision unlawful because the Secretary of State misread the NPPF, treating it as if it imposed a strong presumption for re‑using the existing building when no such presumption exists. He also failed to give adequate reasons for departing from the inspector’s conclusions. The judgment also confirms that offsetting requirements in the London Plan relate to operational carbon, not embodied carbon. This case offers increased clarity for the planning system for...
What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling offers reassurance to the development industry that the method used thus far for the cumulative assessment of carbon emissions is lawful, and it also has important ramifications for litigation that is currently in train. On 19 February 2024, the High Court issued its judgment in R ( Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site) v Secretary of State for Transport [2024] EWHC 339 ( Admin), addressing the consenting of the A303 ( Amesbury to Berwick Down) Development Consent Order. Ground 7 contended that the Secretary of State’s handling of the environmental impact assessment was unlawful in respect of the cumulative effects of greenhouse gas ( GHG) emissions from the DCO project alongside other committed highway schemes. On 6 November 2023, the court agreed to stay this ground pending the Court of Appeal’s determination in...
What is the background to the consultation? In February 2023, the government issued the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects Reform Action Plan, outlining proposals to make the infrastructure consenting regime “better, faster, greener, fairer and more resilient”. This built on commitments to overhaul the system set out in the National Infrastructure Strategy, the British Energy Security Strategy and the Powering Up Britain (2023) papers. Ministers acknowledge that modern, upgraded infrastructure is essential to securing energy supplies, enhancing environmental outcomes, providing transport links, and delivering water, wastewater and waste facilities to support economic growth, and that pressures on the system are evolving. Consent timetables have lengthened, while the number and intricacy of development consent orders ( DCOs) in preparation are rising. Policy updates are needed more often, and the cumulative effects of schemes mean a strategic, rather than...
In this issue: Spring Budget Planning applications and decisions Nationally significant infrastructure projects Buildings and building regulations Heritage and natural environment Planning policy Nutrient neutrality Air quality and climate change Housing Marine planning Lex Talk®Planning: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Related Documents Spring Budget Spring Budget 2024—key planning announcements On 6 March 2024, in the Spring Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP, set out a package of initiatives to reshape public spending and stimulate growth and investment across the country, spanning housing, planning, grid connections, transport and green industries. Commentary on the core planning measures is provided by Chrisa Tsompani, Partner at Davitt Jones Bould, alongside Fiona Sawyer, Professional Support Lawyer, and Charlotte Dyer, of Counsel with the Herbert Smith...
What is the background to the consultation? In the Autumn Budget 2023, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP, set out a number of measures, including plans to boost the capacity of the planning system so it can better serve businesses, such as rolling out premium planning services across England with guaranteed quicker decision dates for major schemes and fee refunds where deadlines are missed. In the Spring Budget 2024, presented on 6 March 2024, the government confirmed it would consult on this accelerated service. Later the same day, it released a consultation titled ‘ An accelerated planning system’. Open until 1 May 2024, the consultation invites views on proposals to: introduce a new accelerated planning service for major commercial applications, providing a decision within ten weeks, with fees refunded if that timeframe is not achieved revise the use of...
R (on the application of Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site Ltd) and another v Secretary of State for Transport [2024] EWHC 339 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? Numerous points depended on the case’s specific facts. The climate change ground and the Boswell decision could have broader reach, making the Court of Appeal judgment significant. Arguably the most generally relevant conclusion concerns Ground 8 and the sufficiency of briefing provided to Ministers before a determination. It is settled that a Minister can only consider matters personally known to him, or specifically brought to his attention, and he is not expected to range beyond that compass. The claimants contended the briefing was deficient, as it omitted points so plainly material that ignoring them would be irrational, and said those matters should have been flagged. The court concluded, however, that even if an issue is...
In this issue: Development consent orders Building Regulations Housing Environmental impact assessment Renewable energy Biodiversity Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Latest Q& A Related Documents Development consent orders Court of Appeal dismisses challenge to development consent for new nuclear power station ( TASC v SOS) R (on the application of Together Against Sizewell C Ltd) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and another company [2023] EWCA Civ 1517 saw the Court of Appeal address, with brevity, two recurring issues about appropriate assessment of schemes under the Habitats Regulations. The first concerned whether infrastructure providing an essential utilities connection for the operation of a development could legitimately be treated as a distinct project. The court held that this turned on the particular facts and was a matter for the...
R (on the application of Together Against Sizewell C Ltd) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and another company [2023] EWCA Civ 1517 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling is notable in light of the pressing requirement for additional nuclear generating capacity highlighted in the energy national policy statements, alongside EN-6’s identification of Sizewell C as a potentially suitable location for new nuclear development. The judgment’s treatment of how utilities infrastructure necessary for a major project should be evaluated has wider significance beyond this scheme. The court rejected the appellant’s stance that utilities infrastructure must be incorporated within the development itself, finding that approach could induce a ‘sclerosis in the planning system’. Decision-making on the main scheme would then be held up pending a utility provider’s choice of preferred method of supplying water,...
In this issue: When planning permission is needed Nationally significant infrastructure projects Biodiversity net gain Planning issues in energy projects Buildings and Building Regulations Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Latest Q& As Related Documents When planning permission is needed Government amends PD rights for England and consults on further changes The government has updated permitted development ( PD) rights in England, simplifying the switch from commercial, business and service uses to dwellinghouses. It has also opened a consultation on further PD reforms, proposing larger household extensions and outbuildings, widening the range of buildings eligible to build upwards, and broadening demolition-and-rebuild rights. See News Analysis: Government amends PD rights for England and consults on further changes. DLUHC announces new planning rules for short-term lets The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ( DLUHC) has issued a press release setting out rule changes intended to stop residents being displaced from their areas by high...
On 13 February 2024, the government set out a package of actions aimed at accelerating housing delivery. Among these were plans to revise national planning policy; see News Analysis: Consultation proposes to strengthen national planning policy on brownfield development. In parallel, it made the Town and Country Planning ( General Permitted Development) ( England) ( Amendment) Order 2024 ( GPDO Amendment Order), SI 2024/141, extending the range of premises captured by Class MA of the Town and Country Planning ( General Permitted Development) ( England) Order 2015 ( GPDO), SI 2015/596, Sch 2 Pt 3, which authorises the change of use from commercial, business and service uses to dwellinghouses. The government also issued a consultation proposing amendments to permitted development rights in the GPDO, to encourage the ‘gentle’ densification of towns and cities......
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
