Landmark Chambers

𝗛𝗶𝗴𝗵 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗼 ‘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆, 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲’ 𝗟𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. The High Court has dismissed a claim for judicial review of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s decision to grant planning permission and listed building consent for a 270sqm basement beneath the garden of a 5-storey townhouse in Holland Park. The basement – described as ‘very, very large’ by the Case Officer and ‘monumental’ by the Chair of the Council’s Planning Committee - would accommodate (inter alia) a 14m swimming pool, changing facilities, lobby, gym and wine store. The claim, which was made by an immediate neighbour, was brought on the basis that in deciding to issue the consents the Council (i) had failed to have regard to the PPG on noise, alternatively that it acted irrationally in deciding that the noise impacts on neighbours over a 63 week construction period would be acceptable; and (ii) had failed properly to understand and apply Policy CL7 of the Council’s Local Plan – the Council’s bespoke basement policy. The High Court (HHJ Jarman KC) dismissed the claim following a substantive hearing, concluding that although there was no mention of the PPG in the Officer’s Report to Committee it was clear that the Council had properly assessed the scheme’s construction noise impacts, and that it had properly understood and applied Policy CL7. Robert Walton KC acted for Imperium Corporate Directors Group, the applicant for the consents, instructed by Mishcon de Reya LLP For more information, including access to the judgment, please follow the link: https://bit.ly/40qsDMz

👥 🖥 𝗪𝗲𝗹𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗕𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗦𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗡𝘂𝘁𝘀 & 𝗕𝗼𝗹𝘁𝘀! 🖥 👥 𝗪𝗲𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿 - 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗟𝗮𝘄 𝗡𝘂𝘁𝘀 & 𝗕𝗼𝗹𝘁𝘀, 𝗦𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝟮 - 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝟯𝟲 The second webinar of our Property Law Nuts and Bolts series will take place on Tuesday 26 November, 2024, 5pm - 6.30pm. This event is free to attend and will take place online (via Zoom). Is this a valid Part 36 offer? What are the consequences of accepting an offer? What happens if fail to beat a Part 36 that was made ages ago? These are just some of the tricky questions that arise under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Knowing how to use Part 36 offers is crucial in civil litigation. This session is designed to give delegates an overview of how Part 36 offers work, along with practical insights from their own cases. These webinars are designed to introduce key topics that are likely to crop up for property litigators. The talks will provide an overview of the legal and procedural landscape with plenty of time for delegates to ask questions at the end. If you would like to attend, please access the booking page via this link: https://bit.ly/40rDjdV Programme: • Welcome and Introduction – Evie Barden • An overview of Part 36 – Claudia Hyde • Recent developments under Part 36 – Mattie Green • Tactics, tips and playing the game of settlement – Evie Barden • Questions and discussion #PropertyLaw #BusinessTenancies #LeaseRenewals #WebinarSeries

Landmark’s Lord Robert Carnwath, James Maurici K.C. and Richard Moules KC will be speaking at White Paper Conferences upcoming Environmental Law & Practice conference on Tuesday 19 November, at The Caledonian Club. Lord Robert Carnwath will chair the event, and will be joined by James Maurici K.C. who will discuss ‘Where are the legal holes in the Government’s “Environmental principles policy statement”, and how will they be filled by other sources of law, e.g. international law and common law?’ And Richard Moules KC who will provide an in depth talk on ‘How has the Manchester Ship Canal decision changed existing thinking on private law and environmental protection, and how do you advise your clients?’ To view the full programme, please follow the link: https://bit.ly/4fiIMIg

𝗔𝘃𝗼𝗻 𝗙𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱𝘀 𝗟𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘃 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗘 𝗥𝗧𝗠 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗟𝘁𝗱 [𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟰] 𝗨𝗞𝗨𝗧 𝟯𝟯𝟱 (𝗟𝗖) The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has handed down a crucial judgment on the right to manage with wide-reaching implications for both landlords and tenants, holding that an equitable tenant in the ‘registration gap’ is a “qualifying tenant” and restricting the circumstances in which landlords can mount a procedural objection to an RTM claim. Justin Bates KC and Sophie Gibson represented the appellant freeholder. For more information, including access to the judgment, please follow the link - https://bit.ly/4hqebKM

𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝘀 𝗕𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗿 𝗥𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 The Government has now published the independent review into legal challenges against NSIPs, undertaken by Lord Banner KC (Keating Chambers) with the assistance of Nick Grant. The Government has also published an open call for evidence seeking views on the recommendations to be taken forward. The call for evidence is open until 11.59 on 30/12/2024. For more information, please follow this link - https://bit.ly/4e4mOYC

The second edition of NHS Law and Practice by David Lock KC, Leon Glenister, and Hannah Gibbs has been referenced by the Law Commission as an authoritative source of the law relating to the duties of NHS bodies towards disabled children. It is cited in footnote 2 on page 162 of the recent consultation paper. This is within two weeks of the book's publication. For further details about the book or information on attending its official launch event, please see the post below.

📖 𝙉𝙚𝙬 𝙋𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝘼𝙙𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙇𝙖𝙬 𝙗𝙡𝙤𝙜 📖 𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗟𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝗿. 𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗧𝗼𝘄𝗻𝘀. Labour’s manifesto promise was to deliver “the biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation”. The height of UK housebuilding was in the 1950s and 1960s. Delivery peaked under Harold Wilson in the second half of the 1960s when just over 300,000 houses were built every year. Since then, we have never had it so good. The government has now set a target of 370,000 new homes a year[2]. How might we get anywhere near this new target? There is only one practical answer: New Towns. I should confess to a love affair with new towns. My wife recounts that when we first started dating, in a romantic moment, she looked into my eyes and asked what I was thinking. Apparently I replied “Milton Keynes: It is a very interesting example of a new town”. However, I dispute my wife’s account: I think it more likely I was thinking about Stevenage[3]. . . . This article was written by Alex Goodman KC To read the full blog post on our website, please visit the following link: To subscribe to our Public and Administrative Lahttps://bit.ly/3Uqb9w0w Insight and get the blog posts sent straight to your inbox, visit our website - https://bit.ly/3SUxNLz #PublicAndAdministrativeLaw #Blog

Landmark's Hashi Mohamed is delivering a keynote presentation at Bidwells, 'Housing Matters: finding collaborative solutions to the UK's housing shortage' panel discussion.🏘💭 Hashi will be joined by a curated panel exploring solutions to the housing crisis with Dan Thorp, Chief Executive at Cambridge Ahead, Paul Morrish, Chief Executive at LandAid and Kelly Bream, COO at Bidwells and Co-founder of VervLife and Navana Property Group. The session will be chaired by Mike Derbyshire, Head of Planning at Bidwells. To find out more information, including how to secure your place, please use the following link - https://bit.ly/4ec8AVG 📆 Monday 18 November 2024 🕓 9am - 11am 📍 Bidwell House, Trumpington Road, Cambridge, CB2 9LD #Planning #Development #HousingCrisis #HousingDelivery

𝗥𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀: 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘄𝗮𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴? The Upper Tribunal has handed down judgment in an important case about rent repayment orders: 𝙈𝙤𝙝 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙫 𝙍𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙡 𝙋𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙚𝙨 𝙇𝙩𝙙 [2024] UKUT 324 (LC) Part 2, Housing Act 2004, makes provision for the licensing of certain HMOs. Controlling or managing an unlicensed HMO is a criminal offence (s.72(1)). Two particular defences are identified in the statute. First, there is a general defence of “reasonable excuse” (s.72(5)). Secondly, it is a defence to show that an application for a licence has been made to the local authority and the authority has not yet determined it (s.72(4)). Where the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a landlord has committed an offence under, inter alia, s.72, it may make a “rent repayment order” requiring the landlord to repay some or all of the rent to the tenant, to a maximum of 12 months rent (s.40, Housing and Planning Act 2016). Such an application may be made only where the “offence was committed in the period of 12 months ending with the day on which the application was made” (s.41(2)). The appellants had been the tenants of the respondent in a property which required, but did not have, an HMO licence. On 4 May 2022, at 1.44pm, the respondent applied for an HMO licence. On 4 May 2023, at 3.56pm, the appellants applied for a rent repayment order. The FTT dismissed the application: the offence of managing an unlicensed HMO ceased once the respondent had applied for the licence; because the law disregards fractions of a day, that meant that the last day on which the offence occurred was 3 May 2022. The application was made more than 12 months after that date and so was not within the time specified for an RRO. The Upper Tribunal dismissed an appeal. The defence under s.72(5) had arisen on 4 May 2022 and, because the law disregards parts of days, the defence was taken to be available for the whole of that day. That meant that the last day on which the offence was committed was 3 May 2022 and an application made on 4 May 2023 was outside the 12 month period permitted for an RRO application. Justin Bates KC and Peter Sibley appeared pro bono on behalf of the tenants, instructed by JWM Solicitors (also acting pro bono). For more information, including links to the judgment, please follow this link - https://bit.ly/3YJ5vIc

𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗹𝗲𝗿𝘁: 𝟭𝟬𝟬% 𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗮 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗻𝗼 𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘁, 𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗧𝗮𝗺𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗵 𝗕𝗖 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗟𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗹𝗱 𝗗𝗖 Image from Summix Capital, credit: https://lnkd.in/e3fvrRsN - Land at Browns Lane This appeal relates to a strategically located site that enables the opportunity to meet the affordable housing needs of two authorities simultaneously. The main lessons again for a site are clear: -Location; accessible and sustainable near existing facilities and services. This remains a key hurdle to clear in any case. -Going beyond the numbers expected in a 'broad development location' was not enough to conclude the undermining of the spatial strategy. -Locational policy conflict need not be determinative of an appeal. (DL 17-41) There was a significant debate about coalescence and impact on character and appearance, as well as heritage impacts. Rather than struggle with this, the site moves built development far from the nearest settlement boundary, keeping 58% of the site as public open space. -Spatial and visual perception of coalescence does not mean there is unacceptable harm. Suitable detailed design proposals can help make it acceptable and mitigated. (DL 42-61) Affordable housing: local policy expects 40% - the scheme offers 100%. -The current need undeniable. The delivery and supply woeful. -Registered Provider Platform Housing Group on board and giving evidence. -The Council argued this would not lead to a 'mixed and balanced' community. The Inspector's conclusion: "There is no substantive evidence, despite the face value policy tension, to show that the absence of market housing will mean that the development will not in practice lead to a mixed and balanced community that encourages social cohesion and inclusion and reduce inequalities..." (DL 62-91) The Planning Balance section is worth a read for its approach to the whole case clearly and comprehensively. (DL115-131). Hashi Mohamed acted for the appellant. For more information, including links to the appeal decision, please follow this link - https://bit.ly/4ffy7y0