Planning, Environment and Property Newsletter - Summer 2023 Edition

Planning Banner

Welcome to the Summer 2023 edition of the 39 Essex Planning Environment and Property newsletter. We have an interesting and varied array of articles in this edition ranging from Stephen Tromans KC looking into corporate accountability and derivative actions following ClientEarth v Shell Plc, to first-time contributors Kerry Bretherton KC and Rebecca Cattermole, who we were delighted to welcome to chambers in April this year, setting out current issues at the intersection of planning, environment and property law. Stephanie David has provided a taster of what you can hear on a new podcast “Climate Law Matters” which is presented by her and Stephen Tromans KC. On top of this we have a run through of the following recent decisions:

John Pugh Smith takes a look at the decision of Redrow Homes Ltd, and also opines on a fresh approach to handling planning applications and appeals following the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Smith v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and Hackney LBC.

Victoria Hutton considers the case of Atwill, in which Celina Colquhoun acted for the successful claimant, and in particular the question of how to consider whether ‘development’ that is the subject of a permission commences under section 56 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in particular in light of what happens subsequently.

Daniel Kozelko covers Devine v Secretary of State for Levelling up Housing and Communities and how to assess substantial completion for the purposes of enforcement time limits.

Eleanor Leydon provides an insight into the case of R (Friends of the West Oxfordshire Cotswalds) v West Oxfordshire DC concerning a successful challenge to the grant of planning permission for development near ancient woodland.

Celina Colquhoun picks up on Victoria Hutton’s success in R (Samuel Smiths) v Redcar and Cleveland BC looking at powers available to local authorities under section 78 of the Buildings Act 1984 to take emergency steps to make safe buildings that were in a dangerous state, and whether such steps require planning permission.

Lastly, James Burton writes on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jalla v Shell on whether unremediated oil spillage to land from a single event was (and as a matter of principle could be) a continuing nuisance, through a cause of action accruing day to day.


We do hope you enjoy this jam-packed edition of the PEP newsletter and manage to find time over the next couple of months to enjoy the Summer. 

Download below: