Richard Wald KC

Richard regularly appears as an advocate in the higher courts for Claimants, Defendants and Interested Parties in public law cases.

Cases of note

Ocado Retail Ltd v London Borough of Islington & (1) Telereal Trillium Ltd (2) Concerned Residents of Tufnell Park [2021] EWHC 1509 (Admin) - Richard acts for residents local to a proposed new Ocado depot on an industrial estate next to a primary school. Those residents successfully applied for the revocation of a certificate of lawfulness permitting unfettered storage and distribution activities at the site on the basis that the determining local planning authority had been materially misled by the application and using a seldom deployed power under section 193(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ("TCPA 1990"). Ocado filed a judicial review claim which sought to quash Islington LBC's revocation decision but CRTP together with Islington LBC successfully defended that claim. Ocado then applied for a fresh certificate on the basis of further evidence, CRTP raised a number of objections to that application and Islington refused it in February 2022. An appeal against that appeal is pending.

R(Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs [2018] UKSC 3 see also [2014] EWCA Civ 708 [2012] EWHC 2115 (Admin), [2012] EWHC 3281 (Admin) 2013] EWHC 1502 (Admin)) - JR of decision to enact the world’s largest Marine Protected Area in the waters surrounding the British Indian Ocean Territory. Richard has acted for the Claimant/Appellant since 2011 in this long-running attempt to repatriate Chagossians expelled from their native islands in the 1960s and at each stage of this litigation from the Divisional to the Supreme Court. He took the lead in devising an argument that the decision was vitiated by an improper purpose based on WikiLeaks evidence of relevant discussions between diplomats. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal but found in the Appellant’s favour on WikiLeaks admissibility.

R (Hillingdon LBC & Ors.) (Claimants) v Secretary of State for Transport (Defendant) & Transport for London (Interested Party) [2010] EWHC 626 (Admin)
- Judicial review challenge to government support for a third runway at Heathrow airport. Richard was subsequently instructed also in related proceedings R(Hillingdon LBC & Ors) v Secretary of State for Transport & Ors. [2017] EWHC 121 (Admin) comprising a strike out application (founded on s13(1) of the Planning Act 2008) by Hillingdon LBC and others (principally west London local authorities) against the SSfT’s decision to select for inclusion in a draft national policy statement (NPS) a proposal for a third runway at Heathrow Airport on grounds of a flawed approach to air quality and breach of legitimate expectation.

Fishermen and Friends of the Sea v Environmental Management Authority [2018] UKPC 24 Richard acted in the Privy Council for Trinidad & Tobago’s leading environmental NGO in its JR of the grant of a Certificate of Environmental Clearance (“CEC”) for a motorway scheme (constituting EIA development) near a protected Savanna in Central Trinidad. Richard had previously acted for the same NGO in its challenge to the permitted of an Aluminium Smelter plant on a protected beach in Trinidad.

Richard practices in a very broad range of public law areas, including local government and human rights.

Cases of note

Chagos R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs [2018] UKSC [2018] UKSC 3 see also [2014] EWCA Civ 708 [2012] EWHC 2115 (Admin), [2012] EWHC 3281 (Admin) 2013] EWHC 1502 (Admin)). JR of decision to enact the world’s largest Marine Protected Area in the waters surrounding the British Indian Ocean Territory. Richard has acted for the Claimant/Appellant since 2011 in this long-running attempt to repatriate Chagossians expelled from their native islands in the 1960s and at each stage of this litigation from the Divisional to the Supreme Court. He took the lead in devising an argument that the decision was vitiated by an improper purpose based on WikiLeaks evidence of relevant discussions between diplomats. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal but found in the Appellant’s favour on WikiLeaks admissibility.

R (Legard) v Kensington & Chelsea Royal Borough Council & (1) Metropolis Properties (2) St Quintin & Woodlands Neighbourhood Forum [2018] EWHC 32 (Admin) - Richard acted for the claimant landowner in this five-day JR of the decision of RBKC to permit a neighbourhood plan designating his land as Local Green Space (LGS), to proceed to referendum. The eventual grounds (after amendment) centred on apparent bias.

FFOS Fishermen and Friends of the Sea v Environmental Management Authority [2018] UKPC 24- Richard acted in the Privy Council for Trinidad & Tobago’s leading environmental NGO in its JR of the grant of a Certificate of Environmental Clearance (“CEC”) for a motorway scheme (constituting EIA development) near a protected Savanna in Central Trinidad. Richard had previously acted for the same NGO in its challenge to the permitted of an Aluminium Smelter plant on a protected beach.

All Wales Byelaws - Richard acted for Natural Resources Wales ("NRW") in a four week public inquiry ordered by the Welsh Government (“WG”) under the Water Resources Act 1991 to scrutinise byelaws (The Wales Rod and Line (Salmon and Sea Trout) Byelaws 2017 and The Wales Net Fishing (Salmon and Sea Trout) Byelaws 2017), pursuant to its duties under the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 and the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act 2015, to conserve and restore dwindling national stocks of salmon and sea trout. NRW's controversial byelaws proposed a ban on the killing of salmon and sea trout in, respectively, all and most, rivers in Wales, and the imposition of associated restrictions on fishing methods. Following the positive recommendation of their Inspector, the Welsh Ministers made the Byelaws in January 2019.

‘Richard is an excellent advocate, who has a good eye for detail. He is very approachable, and always remains in control of witnesses and third parties when cross-examining. Richard is a reassuring presence in any team and has a commanding view upon strategic and technical matters." The Legal 500 2021 (Tier 1, Silks in Planning Category)

Richard regularly acts for private sector, local authority and third party clients in all aspects of planning law. High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court work includes statutory challenges and judicial review. He undertakes both prosecution and defence work in respect of planning, environmental and health & safety enforcement in Magistrates’ and Crown courts. He also acts for landowners and acquiring authorities on all aspects of compulsory purchase and compensation at inquiry and in the Lands Chamber of the Upper Tribunal.

"Richard has a very good grasp of the details relating to aviation regulation and control. He is good on papers but excellent in court. He is measured, confident, on the point and very persuasive." The Legal 500 2023

"An up-and-coming new silk" The Legal 500 2022 (Tier 1, Silks in Aviation Category)

Richard has acted for and against airport owners and operators in a number of legal contexts. These include statutory nuisance proceedings in relation to Formula 1 testing at RAF Elvington, an Environment Agency prosecution under the Water Resources Act 1991 for the alleged discharge of aviation fuel into controlled waters at RAF Mildenhall, numerous planning appeals arising out of applications by Top Gear to extend the scope of their permissions to film at Dunsfold Aerodrome, claims for compensation under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 following the development of Europe’s premier private jet airport at Farnborough Aerodrome. More recently Richard has acted in behalf of parties promoting of objecting to airport expansion schemes including at Heathrow, Stansted, Manston and Luton airports.

Cases of Note:

• Luton Airport – Richard acted for the principle objector to a recent application to increase the passenger cap and noise contours at Luton Airport. The application was called in by two Secretaries of State and heard by three planning Inspectors over the course of 20 days in the Summer and Autumn of 2022. Evidence centred around noise, socio-economics, climate change and planning.
• R (on the application of Jennifer Dawes) v Secretary of State for Transport and Anor) (CO/2917/2020) – Richard acted for the successful claimant in this first ever quashing of a development consent order since the introduction of the Planning Act 2008 (that granted to approve the re-opening of Manston Airport, on the Isle of Thanet in Kent, as a dedicated freight airport).  
• R (Ross & Sanders acting on behalf of Stop Stansted Expansion) v Secretary of State for Transport [2020] EWHC 226 (Admin) – Richard acted for the claimants in this judicial review challenge concerning the interplay between the development consent order regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) and the conventional planning regime.
• Heathrow Airport – Richard has acted for opponents of Heathrow expansion over the last decade or so in three separate claims, including R (Hillingdon LBC & Ors.) (Claimants) v Secretary of State for Transport (Defendant) & Transport for London (Interested Party) [2010] EWHC 626 (Admin), a judicial review challenge to government support for a third runway at Heathrow airport and related proceedings R(Hillingdon LBC & Ors) v Secretary of State for Transport & Ors. [2017] EWHC 121 (Admin) comprising a strike out application (founded on s13(1) of the Planning Act 2008) by Hillingdon LBC and others (principally west London local authorities) against the SSfT’s decision to select for inclusion in a draft national policy statement (NPS) a proposal for a third runway at Heathrow Airport on grounds of a flawed approach to air quality and breach of legitimate expectation.
• Hamish Johnston & Ors. (2) Philip Dandy & Ors. v TAG Farnborough Airport Ltd [2015] UKUT 534 (LC) - Richard acted for over 200 claimants in these Part 1 Land Compensation Act 1973 claims for diminution in value of their homes following works to Farnborough Aerodrome, heard by the Deputy President of the Lands Tribunal over the course of a months’ trial.

Richard promotes and resists compulsory purchase orders and acts for an against compensation claimants in the Upper Tribunal, including under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 

Cases of Note

• Perivale Metropolitan Police Car Pound Compulsory Purchase Order Appeal - Richard acted for real estate investment trust company SEGRO plc in its objection to a compulsory purchase order CPO sought by the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) for the continued operation of its Vehicle Recovery and Examination Service. MOPAC's CPO was considered by an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State over the course of several months which included two weeks of evidence as to whether a compelling case in the public interest for the compulsory acquisition could be demonstrated. The Inspector upheld SEGRO’s objection and dismissed the CPO. 
• Johnston and Ors v TAG Farnborough Airport Limited [2015] UKUT 534 (LC) - Richard acted for the Claimants in over 200 conjoined claims brought under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 for diminution in value of the claimants’ homes arising out of the expansion of Farnborough Airport. Proceedings also involved a judicial review challenge to the Secretary of State for Transport’s refusal to exercise her discretion under s15 of Land Compensation Act to determine the “relevant date” for the purpose of bringing such claims. 

Richard has acted for developers and objectors in a number of major infrastructure projects consented by means of various processes including hybrid bill, development consent order and planning inquiry. Significant experience has included acting for the Department of Transport in the development of the UK’s largest infrastructure project since the 1950’s (HS2), acting for Natural Resources Wales at a number of conjoined inquiries into the proposed development of the M4 corridor around Newport, and acting for and against renewable energy developers on numerous major on and off shore schemes.

Cases of Note

• R (Ross & Sanders acting on behalf of Stop Stansted Expansion) v Secretary of State for Transport [2020] EWHC 226 (Admin) – Richard acted for the Claimants in this judicial review challenge concerning the interplay between the development consent order regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects and the conventional planning regime.
• R (on the application of Jennifer Dawes) v Secretary of State for Transport and Anor) (CO/2917/2020) – Richard acted for the Claimant in this first ever quashing of the grant of a development consent order since the introduction of the Planning Act 2008. (approving the re-opening of Manston Airport, on the Isle of Thanet in Kent, as a dedicated freight airport)
• Westinghouse re Moorfield - Richard advised Westinghouse in relation to the DCO process for nuclear new build at the Moorside nuclear site near Sellafield in Cumbria.   
• M4 Corridor around Newport - Richard acted for Natural Resources Wales in a number of joined public inquiries into the Welsh Government’s proposals to build a £1.4 billion new section of motorway south of Newport (4 month inquiry between February 2017 and March 2018).
• High Speed 2 - Richard formed part of Counsel team acting for the Department for Transport in relation to the passage of the hybrid bill authorising HS2 through the Commons. Principal areas of work related to the scheme’s (and the largest ever) Environmental Statement and HS2’s preparation and representation at hearings of petitions against the High Speed Rail Bill
• North Doncaster Rail Chord - Richard acted for the local authority in this, the first ever DCO to be granted under the Planning Act 2008. The new flyover (known as Doncaster North Chord) was opened in June 2014.

Richard regularly appears in leading high court challenges across the range of his specialist areas of practice

Cases of note

• R(Harris) v Environment Agency & Natural England [2022] EWHC 2264 (Admin) - Richard acted for the successful claimants in this judicial review of the Environment Agency’s failure properly to discharge its duties under the Habitats Directive by safeguarding protected species from the adverse effects of water abstraction in the Norfolk Broads. The case has had wide-ranging ramifications for the application in the UK of both the Habitats Directive and EU law more generally, post-Brexit.
• Ocado Retail Ltd v London Borough of Islington & (1) Telereal Trillium Ltd (2) Concerned Residents of Tufnell Park [2021] EWHC 1509 (Admin) - Richard acts for residents local to a proposed new Ocado depot on an industrial estate next to a primary school. Those residents successfully applied for the revocation of a certificate of lawfulness permitting unfettered storage and distribution activities at the site on the basis that the determining local planning authority had been materially misled by the application and using a seldom deployed power under section 193(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ("TCPA 1990"). Ocado filed a judicial review claim which sought to quash Islington LBC's revocation decision but CRTP together with Islington LBC successfully defended that claim. Ocado then applied for a fresh certificate on the basis of further evidence, CRTP raised a number of objections to that application and Islington refused it in February 2022. An appeal against that appeal is pending
• CPRE (Surrey) and POWCampaign Ltd v Waverley Borough Council and Others, [2019] EWCA Civ 1826 – Richard acted for one of the Claimants in this judicial review concerning the extent to which plan-makers must investigate unmet housing needs outside their area.
• R (Legard) v Kensington & Chelsea Royal Borough Council & (1) Metropolis Properties (2) St Quintin & Woodlands Neighbourhood Forum [2018] EWHC 32 (Admin) Richard acted for the claimant landowner in this five-day JR of the decision of RBKC to permit a neighbourhood plan designating his land as Local Green Space (LGS), to proceed to referendum. The eventual grounds (after amendment) centred on apparent bias.
• R (East Bergholt Parish Council) v Babergh District Council & Ors. [2018] EWHC 3400 (Admin) Richard acted for the Claimant Parish Council in this JR of three planning permissions for 229 homes based on the proper approach to the assessment of the LPA’s 5YHLS under the then recent National Planning Policy Framework 2018 and the meaning of “deliverable” in that context.
• R (Islington LBC and Richmond LBC), R(Lambeth LBC), R(Camden LBC) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 4009 (Admin) - Richard acted for the SSCLG in resisting these judicial review challenges against the exemption process her had applied to changes made in 2013 to the permitted development regime to allow change of use from business (B1) to residential (C3)
• (1) Jonathan Sumption (2) Teresa Sumption v Greenwich LBC & Christopher Rokos (QBD) [2007] EWHC 2776 (Admin) - Richard acted for the Interested Party landowner in this judicial review of the grant (under s. 192 TCPA 1990) of a certificate of lawfulness re erection of a boundary wall in the curtilage of a listed building.f
• National Anti-Vivisection Society v First Secretary of State (QBD) [2004] EWHC 2074 (admin) - Application under s. 288 of the TCPA 1990 re the Secretary of State’s grant of permission for a non-human primate experimentation facility in Cambridge on grounds of predetermination, bias and perversity.

Richard regularly acts for and against development across the full range of planning and enforcement matters. He also acts in other forms of inquiry and hearings, such as the UK COVID Inquiry (Appointed as Counsel to the Inquiry in Spring 2022) and the Hearings of Petitions against the HS2 Hybrid Bill.

Cases of note

• UK Covid-19 Inquiry - Richard was appointed Counsel to the UK Covid-19 Inquiry in Spring 2022. He leads a team of Counsel responsible for the Module related to the public procurement of key equipment and supplies (including PPE and ventilators). 

• Luton Airport - Richard acted for the principle objector to a recent application to increase the passenger cap and noise contours at Luton Airport. The application was called in by two Secretaries of State and heard by three planning Inspectors over the course of 20 days in the Summer and Autumn of 2022. Evidence centred around noise, socio-economics, climate change and planning.

• Stansted Airport – Richard acted on behalf of objectors in the 2021 30-day inquiry, resisting the further expansion of Stansted Airport.

• Drake Park – Richard acted for the promotor of “Drake Park”, a garden village development of up to 1,024 residential units on a green belt site in Elmbridge, Surrey. The s78 planning appeal which followed the refusal of outline planning permission by Elmbridge BC ran for 9 days and centred around the issues of (i) housing need (ii) the effect of the proposal on the Green Belt (iii) transport impacts (iv) drainage impacts.

• Land East of Posbrook Lane, Titchfield, Fareham - Richard acted for the LPA in this week-long appeal against a refusal of a 150 dwelling housing estate and associated development in a sensitive part of Hampshire’s Meon Valley. Key issues at the appeal included (i) whether and if so to what extent the LPA had a shortfall in its 5YHLS and the effect of any such shortfall, (ii) the impact of the proposal on the landscape within which the appeal site is located (iii) the impact of the proposal on the setting and significance of designated heritage assets in its vicinity.

Richard advises on all aspects of planning enforcement and frequently appears in both enforcement notice appeals and related High Court challenges.

Notable cases

Asylum Accommodation Cases – Richard has acted for local planning authorities in a number of recent injunction claims based on an apprehended breach of planning control due to the proposed material change of use from hotel to hostel. Some of these claims are ongoing. A recent example of a reported such case is Gt Yarmouth BC v Al-Abdin & Ors. [2022] EWHC 3476 (KB). 

Barry Biomass Energy from Waste Plant - Richard acted for the owner and operator of one of the UK's largest energy from waste incinerators in Barry, Vale of Glamorgan, Wales. The Vale of Glamorgan Council has recently served Aviva with an enforcement notice requiring the total demolition of the plant. Aviva has appealed against the notice on various grounds. A major enforcement appeal is due to be heard in 2023.

Brentwood v Carver - In 2018 Richard acted for Brentwood Borough Council and then the Crown in enforcement proceedings brought in relation to the 17 alleged breaches of planning control and then offences under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, involving what was described by the Council’s heritage expert as “probably the worst and most comprehensive gutting of a large listed building I have personally encountered in a professional career spanning 40 years”.

Surrey Heath BC v Hook LTL 31/10/14 - Richard acted for the LPA in various enforcement appeals and ahigh court injunction sought to restrain breaches of planning control involving the concealed development of a dwelling house within an agricultural barn.

Richard regularly advises on environmental matters and has appeared in numerous inquiries, local plan examinations and High Court challenges related to climate change and other environmental issues.

Cases of note

• R(Harris) v Environment Agency & Natural England [2022] EWHC 2264 (Admin) - Richard acted for the successful claimants in this judicial review of the Environment Agency’s failure properly to discharge its duties under the Habitats Directive by safeguarding protected species from the adverse effects of water abstraction in the Norfolk Broads. The case has had wide-ranging ramifications for the application in the UK of both the Habitats Directive and EU law more generally, post-Brexit.
• Barry Biomass Energy from Waste Plant -  Richard acted for the owner and operator of one of the UK's largest energy from waste incinerators in Barry, Vale of Glamorgan, Wales. The Vale of Glamorgan Council has recently served Aviva with an enforcement notice requiring the total demolition of the plant. Aviva has appealed against the notice on various grounds. A major enforcement appeal is due to be heard in 2023.
• FFOS Fishermen and Friends of the Sea v Environmental Management Authority [2018] UKPC 24 -  Richard acted in the Privy Council for Trinidad & Tobago’s leading environmental NGO in its JR of the grant of a Certificate of Environmental Clearance (“CEC”) for a motorway scheme (constituting EIA development) near a protected Savanna in Central Trinidad. Richard had previously acted for the same NGO in its challenge to the permitted of an Aluminium Smelter plant on a protected beach.
• R (Jennifer Dawes) v Secretary of State for Transport and Anor [CO/ 2917/ 2020] - acted in the first ever successful judicial review challenging the grant of a development consent order re-opening Manston Airport on climate change grounds.
• Stansted Airport Inquiry - Richard acted in the 2021 30-day inquiry resisting the further expansion of Stansted Airport, inter alia on the grounds of greenhouse gas emissions and the impact on climate change and the ability to meet the “net zero” duty.
• R (Ross & Sanders acting on behalf of Stop Stansted Expansion) v Secretary of State for Transport [2020] EWHC 226 (Admin) - concerning the carbon emission modelling underpinning the government’s “Making Best Use” policy
• Environment Agency v (1) Commercial Recycling Limited (2) Greenway Ireland Ltd (Crown Court Ref: No T2012 0045) - EA prosecution of an independent waste disposal and recycling company under the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Allegations 2007, Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2007 & 2010, and Hazardous Waste (England & Wales) Regulations 2005.
• Francis Roy Morgan (2) Catherine Margaret Baker (Appellants) v Hinton Organics (Wessex) LTD (Respondent) & CAJE (Intervenor) [2009] EWCA Civ 107 - Consideration inter alia of the Aarhus Convention that costs in environmental proceedings should not be “prohibitively expensive”.

“Able to zero in on the key issues in question.” Legal 500 2016

Richard acts in the full range of energy related cases for and against relevant regulators and developers. Relevant experience includes the development of renewable energy schemes including acting for and against developers of nuclear new build, wind farms (more than ten separate public inquiries) and solar arrays. His work also includes advice on incentive schemes such as the renewables obligation, emissions trading schemes (both EU and UK) and carbon taxes.  

Cases of note

• Barry Biomass Energy from Waste Plant - Richard acted for the owner and operator of one of the UK's largest energy from waste incinerators in Barry, Vale of Glamorgan, Wales. The Vale of Glamorgan Council has recently served Aviva with an enforcement notice requiring the total demolition of the plant. Aviva has appealed against the notice on various grounds. A major enforcement appeal is due to be heard in 2023.
• Westinghouse – Richard advised Westinghouse as to the DCO procedure in relation to an application for consent to construct a nuclear new build power station at the Moorside nuclear site in Cumbria.
• Magnox – Richard advises Magnox Ltd in relation to its work in safely and securely decommissioning nuclear sites within the UK.   
• Windfarms – Richard has acted for and against more than a dozen on and off shore windfarm developers in the UK.