Planning Law White Paper 2013 by Thomson Reuters

REUTERS/Todd Korol

PLANNING LAW

FROM SWEET & MAXWELL With a number of important developments occurring throughout the year, leading authors in planning have offered their insight into some of the recent key issues within this practice area. PLANNING LAW TOPICS • Judicial review of planning decisions: important procedural changes, Richard Moules • Onshore oil and gas exploration, Richard Moules • DCLG’s new guidance for renewable and low carbon energy, John Litton QC • National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 47 – RSS housing targets – DCLG projections, Stephen Whale • The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2013, Christopher Lockhart-Mummery QC • Strategic environmental assessment – setting the framework and Parliamentary development consent, David Elvin QC • Neighbourhood planning - watch this space, Lisa Busch • The green (and black) grass of home: the future of carbon capture in Wales, Gwion Lewis

SWEET & MAXWELL

PLANNING LAW WHITE PAPER JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PLANNING DECISIONS: IMPORTANT PROCEDURAL CHANGES RICHARD MOULES Delay in bringing proceedings is especially important in the planning context because considerable prejudice may be caused to developers and other third parties if proceedings are not initiated expeditiously. The courts have therefore insisted that claimants bring planning judicial reviews particularly promptly within the three-month time limit (see e.g. R (Finn-Kelcey) v. Milton Keynes BC [2008] EWHC 1650 (Admin) [2009] Env L.R. 4). There remained, however, a strong perception that the uncertainty caused by threats of judicial review was impeding growth and development. Consequently, when promoting the Growth and Infrastructure Act, the Government also committed to reforming the judicial review procedure in planning cases. That commitment was given effect recently by the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 4) Rules 2013 which amended Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The principal changes are as follows:

• Where grounds for judicial review arise after 1 July 2013 in a planning case, the claim for judicial review must be commenced within six weeks, rather than three months: CPR 54.5(5). Where, however, grounds arise before 1 July 2013, the former rule requiring challenges to be brought promptly and in any event within three months will continue to apply; • The requirement to act “promptly” no longer applies in such cases thereby addressing the concerns that the need to act promptly rendered the time limit insufficiently clear and precise: see R (on the application of Berky) v. Newport City Council [2012] EWCA Civ 378 [2012] C.M.L.R. 44; • Where the court refuses permission for judicial review, and records the fact that the application is “totally without merit”, the claimant may not request an oral reconsideration of the decision. Any appeal to the Court of Appeal against permission being refused thereafter will only be available on paper, and not by oral submissions; • The judicial review pre-action protocol has been amended and it now provides that: “This protocol may not be appropriate in cases where one of the shorter time limits in Rules 54.5(5) or (6) applies. In those cases, the parties should still attempt to comply with this protocol but the court will not apply normal cost sanctions where the court is satisfied that it has not been possible to comply because of the shorter time limits.”

ONSHORE OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION RICHARD MOULES National Planning Policy Framework , paragraph 90 provides that certain forms of development, including “mineral extraction”, are not inappropriate in the Green Belt “provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt”. In Europa Oil & Gas Ltd v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Leigh Hill Action Group [2013] EWHC 2643 (Admin), the claimant had applied for temporary planning permission to explore the Holmwood Prospect in Surrey Hills which was part of the Green Belt and AONB. The chance of finding oil or gas was low (no more than 32%). On appeal, the Inspector held that the proposal did not amount to “mineral extraction” within NPPF paragraph 90 because the purpose was to search for and appraise any hydrocarbons found, not to exploit them. The Claimant sought judicial review. Shortly before the hearing the Government published DCLG Guidance Planning Practice Guidance for Onshore Oil and Gas (19 July 2013) (“the Guidance”) together with a Ministerial Statement emphasising the need to accelerate shale gas development in the UK. In light of that development, the Secretary of State did not seek to uphold the Inspector’s decision (although the Leith Hill Action Group (“”LHAG”) continued to defend the Inspector’s interpretation of paragraph 90). Ouseley J held that speculative exploration for, and appraisal of, hydrocarbons did amount to “mineral extraction” within the meaning of NPPF paragraph 90. In his view it would be illogical to exclude the exploration and appraisal stages from the definition because they were necessary steps before the minerals could be exploited. Permission to appeal has been granted to the LHAG. This case has important ramifications for the shale gas industry and will be seen as facilitating hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in the Green Belt. The Guidance too seeks to provide clarity and certainty on the role of the planning system in the regulation of fracking with the objective of encouraging investment in onshore oil and gas exploration.

The Guidance recognises that the planning process sits alongside other regulatory processes, but directs that the focus of the planning process is to determine whether the proposal is “an acceptable use of land”. The Guidance sets out the key areas for assessment of planning applications in paragraph 30 as follows:

• Noise associated with the operation • Dust • Air quality • Lighting • Visual intrusion into the local setting and the wider landscape caused by the placement of any building or structure within the application site area • Landscape character • Archeological and heritage features • Traffic • Risk of contamination to land • Soil resources • The impact on best and most versatile agricultural land • Flood risk • Land stability/subsidence • Internationally, nationally or locally designated wildlife sites, protected habitats and species, and ecological networks • Nationally protected geological and ecological networks • Nationally protected geomorphological sites and features • Site restoration and aftercare Mineral planning authorities should be satisfied where there is an assessment required by another regulator/body that matters have been warranted sufficient consideration prior to granting planning permission. Critics have been quick to attack the Guidance on the basis inter alia that:

• it does not require an Environmental Impact Assessment for all applications; • it does not ensure that groundwater pollution is prevented contrary to the objectives of the EU Water Framework Directive which prohibits direct discharges to groundwater and (to cover indirect discharges) includes a requirement to monitor groundwater bodies so as to detect changes in chemical composition and to reverse any anthropogenically induced upward pollution trend; • it undermines the UK’s commitments to help secure radical reducations in greenhouse gas emissions –see e.g. paragraph 93 of the NPPF which provides that “planning plays a key role in helping shape places to ensure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions”; • paragraph 65 of the Guidance specifically directs that mineral planning authorities “should not consider demand for, or consider alternatives to, oil and gas resources when determining planning applications”. This contrasts with the Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment requirement to consider reasonable alternatives – an approach that the EU Commission wishes to introduce into an amended EIA Directive. The Guidance is therefore at odds with good environmental practice.

DCLG’S NEW GUIDANCE FOR RENEWABLE & LOW CARBON ENERGY JOHN LITTON QC On 29 July 2013, DCLG published new “guidance” for renewable and low carbon energy development and cancelled the Companion Guide to PPS22. It treads a fine line between re-stating the Government’s commitment to renewable energy and redressing a perception by local communities that they were not being heard when it came to such development; and that the need for renewable energy trumped everything. It seeks to do this by ensuring that local and neighbourhood plans make provision encouraging such development in the right areas. Where those right areas are varies depending on the technology and the locality but, whatever the technology, it stresses that the views of local communities should be listened to. Through a series of questions and answers, guidance is provided on matters such as the role of criteria-based policies, the appropriateness of buffer zones and the role that communities can and should play in planning for renewable development. Without advocating the use of criteria-based policies, the Guidance states that such policies can be useful provided they are expressed positively (and adopts the approach in the NPPF that development should be accepted where the impacts are or can be made acceptable). However, it also stresses in relation to all renewable technologies, whether in the formulation of criteria-based policies or in determining planning applications for such development, that the need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections; and that protecting local amenity is an important consideration which should be given proper weight in planning decisions. It also helpfully identifies the particular planning considerations that relate to specific technologies (hydropower, active solar technologies and wind turbines). Whilst the rise of large-scale solar farms is covered, it is wind turbines which attract the most guidance, reflecting the fact that they are becoming increasingly controversial as remote sites get built and they move closer to people’s homes. For wind farms, it advises that ETSU-R-97 should still be used to assess the noise impacts of turbines and considers the other issues that frequently cause concern to local communities, such as the safety of turbines, the interference with electromagnetic transmission (television, radio and phone) and shadow flicker, in addition to the impact such development has on the landscape, ecology and heritage assets. It adopts the approach of using a turbine’s capacity factor as a measure of its energy output, stating that such information can be “useful” when considering the energy contribution it a turbine will make, particularly when a decision is finely balanced. None of this is particularly new to those determining applications for renewable energy development or who run the gauntlet of an appeal and such development will remain controversial. However, the aspiration of the Guidance is plainly that by including such development in local and neighbourhood plans, local communities will be buying into them at an early stage and that down the line there will be less opposition to specific proposals that conform to locally developed policies. And, where there is, local communities will have a greater voice.

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK PARAGRAPH 47 – RSS HOUSING TARGETS – DCLG PROJECTIONS STEPHEN WHALE Hunston Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 2678 (Admin) The Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England was revoked on 3 January 2013. However, that gave rise to an issue as to the extent to which, if at all, its housing targets could thereafter be relied upon in deciding whether the local planning authority has a five-year housing land supply for the purpose of determining planning applications. That was an issue confronting the Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State in this case when determining an appeal against a refusal of planning permission for residential and care home development in the Green Belt. Put shortly, the choice facing the Inspector was between the RSS figure of a minimum annual average housing development for the St Albans district of 360 dwellings (which took account of and was therefore net of various constraints, and which the St Albans Cabinet resolved, post-RSS revocation, should continue to apply) or the postRSS and unconstrained 2008 DCLG projection that there would be 688 new households per year in that district. The Inspector elected to adopt the RSS figure. This led to a finding that the local planning authority could show a five-year housing land supply even allowing for a 5% buffer. This in turn led to a finding that the developer’s proposed additional housing was not to be attributed weight, leading, ultimately, to a dismissal of the appeal. The developer challenged the decision under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

On 5 September 2013, His Honour Judge Pelling QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) upheld the challenge and quashed the Inspector’s decision. He concluded that it is not open to a local planning authority (or an Inspector) to reach a conclusion as to whether very special circumstances have been made out by reference to a figure (the RSS figure) that does not even purport to reflect the full objectively assessed needs for housing applicable at the time the figure was arrived at, adding that a figure that takes account of constraints should not have any role to play in assessing an assertion that an actual housing requirement has not been met. The Judge found that his approach gave effect to paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework, as properly construed. The proper course, so he said in essence, is to assess housing need without reference to constraints, determine the supply of deliverable sites over the relevant period, and then determine in consequence if there is a five-year housing land supply. If not, that is a factor in favour of the application to be weighed in the overall balance in the usual way. The Judge refused the local planning authority’s application for permission to appeal. It remains to be seen if it will renew the application in the Court of Appeal. The ramifications of this judgment also remain to be seen. If RSS housing targets can no longer be relied upon in the way relied upon by the Inspector, it may lead to more findings of a lack of a five-year housing supply than would otherwise be the case. That depends of course on the level of unconstrained need. The Judge was careful to point out that the case before him concerned decision-making, not plan-making, but that nuance may become lost when his judgment falls to be considered by others.

THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT (AMENDMENT) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2013 CHRISTOPHER LOCKHART-MUMMERY QC This Order came into force (and applies in England only) on 30 May 2013. It contains a very wide range of extended and additional categories of permitted development, designed to further the government’s aims to stimulate economic growth and to assist the delivery of its free school agenda. Some of the changes are to be permanently available. These relate to school fences/gates, an increase in the tolerance for changes to B class buildings (now 500 sq m), certain changes of use to use as a state-funded school, and changes of use of agricultural land or buildings to “flexible uses”. Some are available for three years (until 30 May 2016), applying to home extensions, change of use from offices to residential, and greater tolerances for changes to a range of commercial buildings. One change (broadband apparatus) is available for five years (until 30 May 2018), the change of use of any building to a state-funded school for one academic year, and “flexible use” changes for small (up to 150 sq m) commercial buildings for two years. This note focuses on two of the changes in particular. First, the greater tolerances for household development were the subject of considerable controversy when first mooted, owing in particular to the physical extent of the permitted additions, and the lack of a right to object. The changes in the Order are reduced in scale, and now allow single-storey home extensions, extending beyond the rear wall by 8 metres for a detached house, 6 metres for any other house, and up to 4 metres in height. Further, adjoining neighbours have to be notified, and if there is an objection the prior approval of the planning authority is required. In considering whether approval should be granted, account has to be taken of the impact on amenity of any adjoining premises. Localism has fought back. The second aspect of particular interest is the permitted change of use from office to residential use. This has substantial planning and value implications, and is currently subject to a number of judicial reviews by local authorities who were not excluded from one of the many exempted areas. The permission only applies to buildings last “used” or “in use” for offices. One would have thought, bearing in mind the obvious objectives not only to get empty office buildings into productive use, but also to add to the supply of housing, that the permission would apply to office buildings built in more buoyant times, but which were never let. Curiously, that appears not to be the case – the permission is expressed to apply to buildings which have actually been used for offices, as opposed to buildings simply with a permitted office use. There is a prior approval process applying to the office-residential change, restricted to the implications for transport and highways, contamination and flooding. This new permission is likely to be the subject of much debate and challenge over the coming months.

STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT – SETTING THE FRAMEWORK AND PARLIAMENTARY DEVELOPMENT CONSENT DAVID ELVIN QC HS2 Action Alliance Limited & Others v. Secretary of State for Transport [2013] EWCA Civ 920 For a plan or programme to require SEA it must “set the framework” for EIA development: article 3(2)(a) of the SEA Directive (2001/42/EC). There is little authority on this other than AG Kokott’s Opinion in Terre wallone ASBL & Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL v. Région wallone [2010] E.C.R. I-5611 that a plan or programme had to have some “influence” over the consent process though the extent of that influence might vary according to circumstances. The question is whether, absent a legal obligation to take account, de facto influence is sufficient. This issue is central in the HS2 litigation where the question is whether the Government “Decisions and Next Steps” paper “set the framework” for consent by hybrid bill process since it cannot legally bind Parliament. The Court of Appeal divided: Lord Dyson MR and Richards LJ held that it might set the framework absent a legal influence but “there must at least be cogent evidence that there is a real likelihood that a plan or programme will influence the decision” but rejected the view that a “mere possibility will suffice”. They did not consider that there was such cogent evidence. Sullivan LJ dissented on this issue given the Government’s dual role as promoter and as part of the decision-making body – “The well-established convention of collective ministerial responsibility will ensure that the plan … will in fact have a very significant influence upon Parliament’s decision making process in respect of a Government Bill.” The Government, he said, “plainly intends that it shall, influence Parliament’s decision to give development consent via the hybrid bill process”. Article 7 of the Aarhus Convention (to which the EU is a signatory), which also requires public participation in respect of plans and programmes, does not have a requirement that they should set the framework but merely that they be “plans and programmes relating to the environment”. The majority rejected the view that the SEA Directive should be interpreted flexibly in compliance with the less restrictive requirements of Aarhus. If the majority are correct, this creates (as Sullivan LJ noted) a form of legislative exemption for plans/programmes intended to influence Parliamentary consent processes yet there is no such exemption in the Directive, unlike the exemption in article 1(4) of the EIA Directive. EIA nonetheless requires substantial compliance with EIA objectives by legislative procedures for the exemption to apply (Solvay v. Région Wallonne [2012] Env. L.R. 27) and, ironically, the one point in HS2 on which all the judges to date have agreed is that the Government did not (contrary to its submissions) substantially comply with the requirements of SEA. As Sullivan LJ wryly observed “It would be remarkable if a body that had deliberately not set out to conduct an SEA had somehow managed to substantively comply with the requirements of the SEAD. In practice, save for rare and serendipitous cases, examples of substantial compliance will be confined to those cases where there has been at least some attempt to comply with the requirements of the SEAD”. The Supreme Court is to hear the appeal on 15-16 October 2013.

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING – WATCH THIS SPACE LISA BUSCH In March 2013, Supperstone J handed down Judgment in R (on the application of Daws Hill Neighbourhood Forum) v. Wycombe District Council [2013] EWHC 513 (Admin). This was a landmark case concerning the scope of the neighbourhood planning provisions inserted into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by the Localism Act 2011 and, in particular, the extent of a local planning authority’s discretion to exclude from an area designated as a neighbourhood area any given site or sites geographically connected with it. According to paragraph 183 of the National Planning Policy Framework, “Neighbourhood Planning gives communities direct power to develop a shared vision for their neighbourhood and to deliver the sustainable development they need”. Paragraph 184, likewise, states that “Neighbourhood Planning provides a powerful set of tools for local people to ensure that they get the right types of development for their community”. The upshot of the decision in Daws Hill, however, is that the power in question is in fact narrowly circumscribed. The Council in that case had excluded two sites from an area designated as a Neighbourhood Area on the basis that they were both strategic sites for the purposes of the Adopted Core Strategy for the area, and that they had an advanced planning history. The Claimant Forum argued before Supperstone J that, in taking the above decision, the Council had acted contrary to the principle established in Padfield v Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997, per Lord Reid at 1030, that a discretion conferred on a public body by Parliament must be used to

promote the policy and objects of the relevant Act. In this instance, the object of the Act in question was that of conferring upon local communities the broad powers referred to in the paragraphs of the Framework cited above. Supperstone J rejected that submission, holding instead that local authorities have a wide discretion under section 61G of the 1990 Act to designate the whole or part of an area as a Neighbourhood Area as they see fit, by reference to the question of whether it is “appropriate” to designate the whole or only part of the area, pursuant to the terms of section 61G(5)(c). Permission to appeal against the Order of Supperstone J dismissing the Claimant’s claim was granted in June 2013 by Patten LJ, who remarked that it was “at least” arguable that the Council had been wrong to exclude the two strategic sites from the designated Neighbourhood Area, and that, indeed, the fact that they were strategic sites “may make their inclusion important in order to give effect to the purpose of the legislation”. The appeal, which is listed for hearing in February 2014, will therefore involve a critical ruling on the overarching issue of whether the “set of tools” conferred on local people by the Neighbourhood Planning provisions are genuinely powerful, and if so, to what extent.

THE GREEN (AND BLACK) GRASS OF HOME: THE FUTURE OF CARBON CAPTURE IN WALES GWION LEWIS This was not supposed to happen. When, in 1984, Margaret Thatcher announced plans to close several large coal pits in Wales, she said that the economic future of the nation lay in the technology industries, not in the dirty business of digging for fossil fuels. Fast-forward 30 years, however, and the message from the Welsh Government and the Welsh Office could not be clearer: coal mining is back in vogue. This unlikely renaissance is due mainly to a multi-million pound carbon capture and storage (“CCS”) facility that is being piloted at the Aberthaw Power Station on the banks of the Bristol Channel. The green credentials of the technology, which captures and stores the carbon dioxide generated when coal is burnt instead of releasing it to the atmosphere, have prompted discussion about whether the Assembly’s ambitious programme of planning and environmental legislation for the next three years can do anything to promote CCS. With a Planning Bill, an Environment Bill and a Sustainable Development Bill on the cards, surely, say campaigners, a set of provisions to facilitate the adoption of CCS in the dormant coal pits can find a home somewhere? The position is not straightforward. There is debate as to whether CCS is within the legislative competence of the Assembly. Part 3 of Schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 applied before the people of Wales voted in favour of greater devolution in the 2011 referendum. They provided for the making of “Assembly Measures” in relation to certain “matters”. Expressly “not included” in the matters listed in Schedule 5 was the “regulation of the capture, conveyance or disposal of carbon dioxide as part of relevant carbon capture and storage”. The “Yes” vote in the 2011 referendum has brought Part 4 of Schedule 7 to the 2006 Act into play, empowering the Assembly to make “Acts”, not Measures, in areas within its competence. But areas of competence are now defined differently. “Economic development” is defined as within competence and includes “improvement of the environment”, but subject to the following exception: “Generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity...”. There is no mention of CCS in Schedule 7. Paragraph 6 of Schedule 7 simply brings within competence “Environmental protection, including pollution, nuisances and hazardous substances”. Section 106(1) of the 2006 Act states that “Part 3 ceases to have effect on the day on which the Assembly Act provisions come into force”. If Part 3 no longer has effect, that is also practically to deprive Schedule 5 of any further effect. Moreover, had it been Parliament’s intention to exclude CCS from the scope of Schedule 7 (“environmental protection”), it would surely have said so explicitly. The better view, therefore, is that CCS is within the Assembly’s competence, but only insofar as it relates to “environmental protection”. This seems consistent with the position of the UK Government, which has said that it is “responsible for the overall strategic approach to energy, including the role of CCS” but that, at the same time, “emissions of carbon dioxide are a devolved matter”, such that “the capture and storage of carbon dioxide are devolved matters”. The upshot is that the costs of implementing CCS at a commercial scale are such that the UK Government needs to take the lead in establishing its financial viability. Insofar as the Assembly has legislative competence for CCS as a matter of “environmental protection”, this will provide a basis for encouraging and/or facilitating the delivery of CCS in Wales in due course, but only once the viability of the technology has been established as a matter of UK energy policy. This seems unlikely to be achieved within the legislative timeframe for the three Bills mentioned above.

KEY LOOSELEAF TITLES FROM OUR PORTFOLIO ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PLANNING LAW AND PRACTICE EDITORS: CHRISTOPHER LOCKHART-MUMMERY QC, JOSEPH HARPER QC, DAVID ELVIN QC, DAVID HOLGATE QC, JOHN LITTON QC, RUPERT WARREN QC, REUBEN TAYLOR, STEPHEN WHALE, LISA BUSCH, GUY WILLIAMS, DAVID BLUNDELL, GWION LEWIS, RICHARD MOULES, JACQUELINE LEAN

With this Encyclopedia you’ll have exhaustive coverage of all the relevant European legislation, domestic statutes and statutory instruments and policy documents, making it an essential reference tool. Coverage in recent and forthcoming releases and monthly bulletins includes:

• Full updating and rewriting of the annotations to: - Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, including sections 55, 70-73, and 106- 106C (including new provisions from the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013) - Part VII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on planning enforcement - Part IX of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on acquisition, CPO and appropriation

• Textual amendments and commentary on the changes brought about by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2013, and any future changes with regard to use classes and permitted development rights • A full review of both the statutory instruments and planning policy sections • Expanded commentary on the National Planning Policy Framework

- Part XIII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on Crown land and the commentary on this in other parts of the Encyclopedia

• Following the rewriting of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) commentary earlier in 2013, updating to reflect judgments in HS2 litigation

- Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010

• Review and updating of the Habitats commentary

- Land Development Regulations 2012 in light of Wakil No.2 (2013) and West Kensington Residents (Earls Court SPD) (2013)

• Commentary on the Aarhus convention and protective costs

• Integration with existing provisions and commentary on the the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013

• The addition of new materials, including the PINS practice guides and further EU material • Emerging policy on applications for hydraulic fracturing of shale gas (fracking) • A new format for the monthly bulletins in 2014 in order to provide customers with a broader update on key developments in planning law and policy

9780421007406 10 Volume Looseleaf, 4 releases a year , 12 monthly bulletins a year Now available on Westlaw UK

£1335

SWEET & MAXWELL’S PLANNING LAW: PRACTICE AND PRECEDENTS EDITORS: STEPHEN TROMANS QC AND ROBERT TURRALL-CLARKE

Dealing with all aspects of town and country planning and specifically written to help you solve the problems you are likely to face in daily practice. • Gives full explanation of the law and procedure relating to each topic • Includes a paperback book containing an extensive range of forms and precedents, re-issued annually

• Explains the law and procedure relating to each topic in the narrative, with references to the relevant statutes, SIs, circulars, policy documents, cases and published planning appeal decisions

• Provides comprehensive coverage by approaching each topic with both the applicant and local planning authority in mind

• Forthcoming releases will include coverage of developments in relation to development plans, major infrastructure projects, the countryside, and retail

9780421388505 1 volume looseleaf, 3 releases per year

£784

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW EDITORS: JUSTINE THORNTON, RICHARD WALD, JAMES BURTON, ROSE GROGAN, NED HELME, JOSEPHINE NORRIS, DANIEL STEDMAN JONES, MUNGO WENBAN-SMITH, STUART BELL, DR LAURENCE ETHERINGTON, CHRIS STAPLES, STEPHEN TROMANS QC • Provides a complete reference source on environmental law, setting out the position in England and discussing the impact of Welsh devolution • Helps legal obligations and duties to be fully understood, compliance procedures to be followed correctly and, should breaches or disputes occur, remedies to be pursued effectively • Considers criminal liability in relation to pollution control and the main institutions and advisory bodies relevant to environmental protection • Sets out key features of pollution control, substance control and protective legislation • Sets out over 125 European directives, Council resolutions, decisions and related materials, each one preceded by introductory notes

• Contains more than 50 fully annotated domestic statutes • Includes more than 200 domestic statutory instruments, with introductory notes for each one and full annotations for the more important instruments • Includes the Environmental Law Bulletin as part of your subscription to update you 10 times throughout the year • Forthcoming releases will include revision of the Introduction to the work, and additional commentary on various materials including the Environmental Liability Directive and key domestic statutes and statutory instruments

9780421456501 3 issues a year

YOUR 30-DAY SATISFACTION GUARANTEE Our customer promise means that if you are not totally satisfied with the goods you have ordered you are protected under our 30-day satisfaction guarantee. As long as the goods are returned within the 30-day period, in good resaleable condition and according to our returns procedure, your order will be cancelled and you will owe nothing or will be refunded the price of the goods. Applicable to EU customers.

£1427

JOURNAL OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LAW EDITORS: PROFESSOR MICHAEL PURDUE, MARTIN EDWARDS, RICHARD HARWOOD QC, RICHARD HONEY, ASHLEY BOWES

Published monthly, this journal will provide you with a guide to recent and forthcoming developments in planning law, environmental law, compulsory purchase and related areas. When changes take place in this area, through new legislation, policy, or case law, you can trust the journal to keep you up-to-date and provide you with an informed analysis of the implications. • The journal is widely known as a forum for debate in this area • Includes current topics, articles, Parliamentary and Departmental news, case law reports, Upper Tribunal decisions, summaries of cases, ministerial planning decisions, Local Government Ombudsman reports and a stop-press bulletin • Forthcoming issues include articles on (among other topics): - An Overview of the Law and Practice of Renegotiating Planning Obligations - The Influence of the Aarhus Convention on EC Environmental Law - Review of the Law on Environmental Impact Assessment • Cases to be reported in full, with expert commentary, include:

C A decision in R (ono Buckinghamshire County Council ) v Secretary of State for Transport on the need for SE A with regard to the Government’s proposal to build a high-speed train link between Birmingham and London

C A decision in Williams v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government which looked at jurisdiction of the courts in challenges to enforcement notices

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government v Sandra San Vicente which clarifies the powers of the courts to amend challenges under s.288

- Several cases on “salami slicing” with regard to environmental impact assessment - Cases on wind turbines • A special 13th issue contains the papers delivered at the annual Oxford Joint Planning Law Conference

0307-4870 12 issues a year

£561

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF COMPULSORY PURCHASE AND COMPENSATION GENERAL EDITOR: CLIVE M BRAND

The Encyclopedia of Compulsory Purchase and Compensation offers you a complete and fully up-to-date guide to the complex provisions of the law relating to the compulsory purchase of land and the compensation provisions. • Presents detailed coverage of the powers of relevant authorities • Examines the authorisation procedure for compulsory purchase orders, procedure after the order and compensation

• Explains the rules which regulate entitlement to compensation if a landowner or occupier suffers loss

9780421007505 3 volume looseleaf, 3 releases per year

PLACE YOUR VISIT ORDER TODAY EMAIL CALL

£1097

sweetandmaxwell.co.uk TRLUKI.orders@thomsonreuters.com 0845 600 9355 (UK) +44 (0)1264 388560 (INTERNATIONAL) QUOTING REFERENCE 1162501A