Скачать презентацию Legal Update Title goes here Subtitle goes here Скачать презентацию Legal Update Title goes here Subtitle goes here

ec937621a6837933c4975e043c84e1dd.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 8

Legal Update Title goes here Subtitle goes here 30 Name Surname One September 2015 Legal Update Title goes here Subtitle goes here 30 Name Surname One September 2015 Name Surname Two Beverley Firth

Neighbourhood Plans o R(Larkfleet Homes) v Rutland CC (2015) – NDPs can allocate. o Neighbourhood Plans o R(Larkfleet Homes) v Rutland CC (2015) – NDPs can allocate. o R (Gladman Developments) v Aylesbury Vale DC (2014) – NDPs can draw a settlement boundary and restrict housing development beyond it even where there is no up to date containing strategic housing policies. o Crane v SSCLG (2015) – lawful for an Inspector to refuse PP on a site which conflicted with an NDP. o R (DLA Delivery) v Lewes DC (2015) – an NDP can be made even if there is no up to date DPD for it to be in conformity with.

Viability appraisals and confidentiality o R(Perry) v Hackney LBC (2014) - decision to grant Viability appraisals and confidentiality o R(Perry) v Hackney LBC (2014) - decision to grant PP when members had not seen viability reports was lawful. o Royal Borough of Greenwich v Information Commissioner (2015) – developer’s viability appraisal required to be disclosed. o L B Southwark v Information Commissioner (2014) – part only of the appraisal was required to be disclosed. o R(George Turner) v SSCLG (2015) – Inspector on appeal had not seen the viability appraisals. Challenge unsuccessful. o Hallows v Wilson Barca LLP (2015) – legal professional privilege inadvertently waived in an FOIA context.

Consultation o West Berks DC/Reading BC v SSCLG (2015) – flawed consultation exercise because Consultation o West Berks DC/Reading BC v SSCLG (2015) – flawed consultation exercise because opportunity for “meaningful intelligent response” was denied and the SS failed to take the product of consultation “conscientiously into account”. o Dairy Crest Ltd v Merton LBC (2015) – confirmation of TPO quashed due to failure to deal properly with objection. o R (Moseley) v Haringey LBC (2014) – Supreme Court endorses “Sedley criteria”. o R v Brent LB ex p Gunning (1984) – Sedley criteria established.

Is it a question of law – or judgment? o R (Larkfleet) v South Is it a question of law – or judgment? o R (Larkfleet) v South Kesteven DC (2015) – salami slicing case. Is it a question for the LPA challengeable only on Wednesbury grounds? o Tesco v Forest of Dean (2015) – LPA entitled to regard the s. 106 package sufficient and passing the CIL Reg 122 tests. o Eastleigh BC v SSCLG (2014) – question of whether a 5 year HLS demonstrated is a matter of judgment for the decision maker subject to Wednesbury. o R (Champion) v North Norfolk DC (2015) – legally defective screening exercise but relief refused.

The committee report o R (Milton Estates) v Ryedale DC (2015) - report had The committee report o R (Milton Estates) v Ryedale DC (2015) - report had significantly misled committee about an inspector’s decision on another relevant scheme. o Obar Camden Ltd v Camden LBC (2015) – report not sufficient to discharge duty under s. 66 Listed Buildings Act and misdirected members as to the EHO’s advice. o Dairy Crest Ltd v Merton LBC (2015) – report did not properly identify and discuss the relevant issues. o R (Loader) v Rother DC (2015) – report did not significantly mislead. o Mackman v SSCLG (2015) – by contrast, screening opinion adequate even though the Court had to assume officer had taken certain matters into account

Others o Lawson Builders v SSCLG (2015) – s. 73 application resulted in s. Others o Lawson Builders v SSCLG (2015) – s. 73 application resulted in s. 73 A being engaged because development had already begun. New permission effective immediately on grant. o Oxfordshire CC v SSCLG (2015) – Inspector not acting unlawfully in deciding that admin/monitoring costs failed the CIL Reg 122 tests. o Wiltshire CC v SSCLG (2015) – Court found a procedural error in this appeal which resulted in the Inspector failing to take account of a material consideration. Nevertheless, PP not quashed. o Hubert v Carmarthenshire (2015) – “unless otherwise agreed” struck out of condition.

T +(0)344 880 1666 www. mills-reeve. com Offices: o Birmingham o Cambridge o Leeds T +(0)344 880 1666 www. mills-reeve. com Offices: o Birmingham o Cambridge o Leeds o London o Manchester o Norwich Mills & Reeve LLP is a limited liability partnership authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England Wales with registered number OC 326165. Its registered office is at Fountain House, 130 Fenchurch Street, London, EC 3 M 5 DJ, which is the London office of Mills & Reeve LLP. A list of members may be inspected at any of the LLP’s offices. The term “partner” is used to refer to a member of Mills & Reeve LLP. The contents of this document are copyright © Mills & Reeve LLP. All rights reserved. This document contains general advice and comments only and therefore specific legal advice should be taken before reliance is placed upon it in any particular circumstances. Where hyperlinks are provided to third party websites, Mills & Reeve LLP is not responsible for the content of such sites.