The High Court has considered whether, following an outline planning permission for housing subject to a s106 agreement, section 73 permissions for essentially the same development were bound by the agreement. Christopher Lockhart-Mummery QC analyses the judgment.

In planning decisions such as Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and planning appeals, a duty to give reasons is provided for in statute. But since its abolition in 2013, the duty to give reasons for the grant of planning permission by local planning authorities (LPAs) has not been a statutory requirement. Ros Trotman examines the growing body of case law where a common law duty to give…

David Perry and Tim Willis examine the government’s latest proposals for mandatory provision of discounted housing through the First Homes scheme; including the classification of this tenure as “affordable housing” in planning policy terms.

Michael Bedford QC and Asitha Ranatunga set out the key considerations when advising planning committees on the costs consequences of their decisions.

Katherine Barnes considers a recent High Court case which has important implications for plan-making and local plan examinations in general.

In this webinar, Peter Village QC, Thomas Hill QC, Richard Harwood QC, Philippa Jackson and Victoria Hutton discuss what they say is considered the biggest shake-up of the planning system since 1947.

Meeta Kaur chairs an informal discussion focused on the changes to the Use Classes Order and how they have potentially fundamental consequences for land owners, developers, local authorities and communities.

What can councils do to obtain an injunction after the Bromley judgment? Jack Smyth looks at the lessons from the first hearing after the Court of Appeal ruling.

The Court of Appeal has recently issued a judgment covering the tilted balance, settlement boundaries and the standard method for calculating objectively assessed housing need. Howard Leithead sets out the key points.

Jacqueline Lean, Simon Pickles, Luke Wilcox and Colin Smith FRICS discuss land compensation, pursuing and resolving claims, s.7 claims, and injurious affection and tenant compensation.

It is, perhaps, one of the many oddities as well as ironies of 2020, so far, that having been in national “lockdown” the Higher Courts have produced more planning jurisprudence on the concept of “openness” this year than ever before, writes John Pugh-Smith.

Roy Pinnock and Amy Carter look at the thorny issue of access to facilities in larger schemes.

A High Court judge recently ruled that Essex County Council was entitled in 2019 to terminate a 25-year contract for the processing of household waste. Stephen Tromans QC explains why.

Paul G Tucker QC and Constanze Bell analyse a recent Court of Appeal judgment regarding the interpretation of green wedge policy.

Christopher Cant looks at the government's proposals on the deferral of the Community Infrastructure Levy and sets out areas of concern for local authorities.

In the fifth and final article in Landmark Chambers’ series on varying and enforcing s. 106 obligations, James Maurici QC, Kate Olley, Heather Sargent, Matthew Henderson and Nick Grant mop up some miscellaneous matters by looking at money claims and other dispute resolution.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) definition of ‘deliverable’ is not a closed list, explains Josef Cannon.

In the fourth article in a series by a group of Landmark barristers on the subject of the variation and enforcement of s106 obligations, James Maurici QC, Kate Olley, Heather Sargent, Matthew Henderson and Nick Grant explore the law on enforcing s106 obligations by way of injunction.

Christopher Cant looks at a thorny issue for developers and local authorities alike.

John Pugh-Smith offers a cautionary tale for parties that fail to keep the Court in the loop when settlng a planning dispute.