Source: https://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/people/james-maurici-qc/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:23:41+00:00

Document:
James Maurici was called to the Bar of England & Wales in 1996. He was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2013. He practices in planning; environmental law; and public law. His practice regularly encompasses EU and international law. He was a member of the Attorney-General’s London Panels of Junior Counsel to the Crown from 1999-2013. He previously also served on the Welsh Assembly Government’s Junior Counsel Panel from 2009 to 2013. He was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2009 and practises in that jurisdiction also.
He has extensive experience of appearing in the Higher Courts as well as at inquiries and in front of other tribunals. For more detail of recent work in each of these categories see cases and inquiries. James has appeared in numerous cases before the European Court of Justice and the General Court (formerly the Court of First Instance) and has appeared a number of times before the UNECE Aarhus Compliance Committee in Geneva. James works for a wide range of public sector clients, private clients and public interest groups. In 2010 James was awarded Junior of the Year in the Planning & Environment category of the Chambers & Partners Bar Awards.
He is a member of the Administrative Law Bar Association, the United Kingdom Environmental Law Association (‘UKELA’), the Planning and Environment Bar Association (“PEBA”), the Human Rights Lawyers Association, the United Kingdom Association for European Law, the Compulsory Purchase Association, the Bar European Group, United Kingdom Environmental Law Association (“UKELA”), the National Infrastructure Planning Association (“NIPA”) and the UK State Aid Law Association. Between June 2008 and June 2016 we was on the Council of UKELA and was also on the Executive Committee of UKELA for much of that time.
James’ planning practice encompasses all aspects of planning both at inquiries and hearings and in the Higher Courts. His practice also encompasses compulsory purchase and compensation, harbours, highways, rights of way, commons registration and village greens (both inquiries and in the Higher Courts). James regularly advises on the EU public procurement and state aid issues arising in the planning and compulsory purchase context. James chairs the Planning Steering Group at Landmark Chambers.
He also has recent experience of complex enforcement appeals. James has particular expertise in advising and acting in respect of development affecting National Parks and AONBs and in relation to habitats and air quality issues.
James has appeared at several Local Plan examination hearings for developers and local authorities; he is advising promoters in respect of a number of proposals in emerging Local Plans. He has also advised a number of local planning authorities on issues related to preparation of Development Plans.
Birchall Garden Suburb, currently in the Green Belt, and proposed for 2550 new homes in the Welwyn Garden City Borough Council and East Hertfordshire District Council Local Plans. Client: Tarmac.
Begbroke, currently in the Green Belt, and proposed for 1950 homes in the Cherwell Local Plan Partial Review. Client: Oxford University, Merton College & Others.
Redhill v SSCLG  P.T.S.R. 274 on the meaning of “any other harm” in Green Belt policy.
the proposed previous scheme for a Heathrow Runway 3 R (Hillingdon) v Secretary of State for Transport J.P.L. 976).
Tewkesbury BC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government  B.L.G.R. 399.
James acted for FCC Environment in their legal challenge under the Planning Act 2008 to the Rookery South (Resource Recovery Facility) Order 2011. He acted for the Secretary of State in a challenge to the Able Marine DCO. He regularly advises on mattes under the 2008 Act.
James has appeared at a number of village green inquiries for both applicants and objectors. His High Court cases in this area include R. (Laing Homes Ltd) v Buckinghamshire CC  1 P. & C.R. 36; Oxfordshire CC v Oxford City Council  2 A.C. 674 and R. (SDR) v Bristol City Council  EWHC 859 (Admin).
He also regularly acts in commons related work. He also regularly advises on commons consent and related issues.
He has promoted a number of CPOs.
He was part of the legal team acting on the Tottenham Hotspur stadium CPO..
He acted for Highways England and Walsall Borough Council on the inquiry into the Highways England Company Limited (M6 Junction 10) (Slip Roads, Special Roads) Scheme 2018; the Highways England Company Limited (M6 Junction 10) (Slip Roads, Special Roads) (Side Roads) Order 2018; the Highways England Company Limited (M6 Junction 10) (Slip Roads, Special Roads) Compulsory Purchase Order 2018 and the Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (M6 Junction 10) Compulsory Purchase Order 2018 – which involve a scheme for highway alterations and improvements at Junction 10 of the M6.
a number of challenges to Pathfinder CPOs: Pascoe v First Secretary of State (No. 1)  1 W.L.R. 885 and (No. 2)  EWHC 881 (Admin); McCabe v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government  EWHC 959 (Admin))).
He also acts in compensation matters (see e.g. Kingsley v Highways Agency  R.V.R. 12).
James has acted in a number of rights of way inquiries and regularly advises on highways issues including highways orders under the Highways Act 1980.
James successfully defended the first judicial review brought of the Marine Management Organisation: see R. (Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd) v Marine Management Organisation  EWHC 3058 (QB). He has acted in a number of Harbours Act 1964 cases, see e.g. R. (Great Yarmouth Port Co Ltd) v Marine Management Organisation (No. 1)  EWHC 3052 (Admin) and R (Great Yarmouth Port Co Ltd) v Marine Management Organisation (No. 2)  EWHC 833 (Admin). He regularly advises on harbour related issues. And also has particular experience of nature conservation issues in a ports context: see e.g. R (Lymington River Association) v Secretary Of State For Communities & Local Government  EWHC 2810 (Admin) and Humber Sea Terminal Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport Env. L.R. 4. He acted for the Folkestone Harbour Company in promoting the Folkestone Harbour Revision Order 2017. He acted for the Secretary of State in a challenge to the Able Marine DCO.
He regularly appears in the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the General Court of the European Union (formerly the European Court of First Instance) on environmental matters.
He has also appeared a number of times before the UNECE Aarhus Compliance Committee in Geneva: cases include: ACCC/C/2010/45; ACCC/C/2010/53 (Edinburgh Tram) ACCC/C/2011/60; ACCC/C/2011/61 (Crossrail); ACCC/C/2012/77 (Nuclear NPS); and ACCC/C/2014/100 and 101 (High Speed 2).
He is on the LexisPSL Environment Consulting Editorial Board and on the editorial board of Garner’s Environmental Law.
He is regularly involved in advising in cases involving freedom of information and in particular the Environmental Information Regulations. He was previously a member of the Treasury Solicitor’s Freedom of Information list of Panel Counsel. He has acted in a number of cases in the tribunals on these issues. He is the author of chapter on “Access under the Environmental Information Regulations” in P. Coppell Information Rights Law and Practice 4th ed (2014). Recent cases include: Case C-71-14 East Sussex County Council v Information Commissioner  P.T.S.R. 179 (property searches and the Environmental Information Directive); Case C 279/12 Fish Legal & Emily Shirley v The Information Commissioner, United Utilities, Yorkshire Water and Southern Water  2 W.L.R. 568 (the meaning of public authority under the Environmental Information Directive).
James has been in many of the leading cases on Aarhus costs including: R (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) v Secretary of State for Justice  5 Costs L.O. 691 (challenge to the revised Aarhus costs rules), Case C 530/11 Commission v United Kingdom and Case C-260/11 Edwards v Environment Agency (costs and environmental judicial review cases before the CJEU); R. (Edwards) v Environment Agency (No.2)  1 Costs L.R. 70 and  UKSC 78; R. (Edwards) v Environment Agency  1 W.L.R. 79. He has also appeared a number of times before the UNECE Aarhus Compliance Committee in Geneva.
James has appeared in many of the leading cases on EIA including: Berkeley v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions  2 A.C. 603 and Case C-290/03 R (Barker) v Bromley LBC  1 AC 470. More recent cases include: R. (Birchall Gardens LLP) v Hertfordshire CC  Env. L.R. 1 (EIA screening); R. (Padden) v Maidstone BC  EWHC 51 (Admin) (EIA and retrospective consent); R. (Loader) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government  3 C.M.L.R. 29; R. (Berky) v Newport City Council  2 C.M.L.R. 44 (delay and EIA); Save Britain’s Heritage v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government  2 C.M.L.R. 48 (demolition and EIA).
Cases include Case C-567/10 Inter-Environnement Bruxelles ASBL, Case C-474/10 Seaport (NI) Ltd, Magherafelt District Council and Others v Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland (both in the CJEU).
James has acted in a number of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme civil penalty appeals. His cases include: C-504/09 P Commission v Poland; Case T-183/07 Poland v Commission  ECR II-3395; Case T-369/07 Latvia v Commission; and Case T-263/07 Estonia v Commission  ECR II 3463 (before the CJEU and the General Court).
James has particular expertise in air quality issues (affecting both human and ecological receptors). He has appeared for developers in a number of inquiries raising these issues and also acted in High Court cases such as R. (Shirley) v SSCLG  EWHC 2306 (Admin) (interpretation of the air quality directive); Wealden DC v SSCLG  EWCA Civ 39 (habitats and air quality); Hillingdon LBC v Secretary of State for Transport  EWHC 121 (Admin) (airport expansion judicial review strike out).
Recent cases include Wealden DC v SSCLG  EWCA Civ 39 (habitats and air quality); R (McMorn) v Natural England  Env. L.R. 14; R. (Prideaux) v Buckinghamshire CC  Env. L.R. 32. James has acted in numerous planning appeals concerning habitats and species protection issues. He has also acted on a number of appeals under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. He advises on all legal aspects of habitats and species protection. James has worked on a number of high profile appeals and High Court cases in relation to shooting estates and shooting rights.
He has been involved in litigation and advisory work involving fracking: see R. (Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association) v West Sussex CC  EWHC 4108 (Admin) and R. (Dean) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy  4 W.L.R. 158.
He has acted in a number of cases concerning the contaminated land regime in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. He acted for the Secretary of State in challenges to the first ever remediation notice appeal (see R. (Redland Minerals Ltd) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs  Env. L.R. 2 and R. (Crest Nicholson Residential Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs  Env. L.R. 1). He also appeared for Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council on the second ever appeal against a remediation notice in respect of the former Willenhall Gas Works.
James successfully defended the first judicial review brought of the Marine Management Organisation: see R. (Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd) v Marine Management Organisation  EWHC 3058 (QB). He has acted in a number of Harbours Act 1964 cases, see e.g. R. (Great Yarmouth Port Co Ltd) v Marine Management Organisation (No. 1)  EWHC 3052 (Admin) and R (Great Yarmouth Port Co Ltd) v Marine Management Organisation (No. 2)  EWHC 833 (Admin). He regularly advises on harbour related issues. And also has particular experience of nature conservation issues in a ports context: see e.g. R (Lymington River Association) v Secretary Of State For Communities & Local Government  EWHC 2810 (Admin) and Humber Sea Terminal Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport  Env. L.R. 4. He acted for the Folkestone Harbour Company in promoting the Folkestone Harbour Revision Order 2017. He acted for the Secretary of State in a challenge to the Able Marine DCO.
See e.g. in the Supreme Court R (Mott) v Environment Agency  UKSC 10.
James regularly advises on complex waste issues. James is acting for the Environment Agency in the case of Protreat v Environment Agency on reprocessed oils. He has been in a number of the leading European cases on waste including: Case C-247/06 Commission v Federal Republic of Germany; Case C-188/07 Commune de Mesquer v Total France SA and Total International Ltd.  E.C.R. I-4501; Case C-255/05 Commission v Italy  ECR I-5767; Case C-262/05; R. (Thames Water Utilities Ltd) v Bromley Magistrates’ Court  E.C.R. I-3883and Case C-176/05 KVZ Retec GmbH v Austria  Env LR D14. He has extensive experience of litigating waste infrastructure in the domestic courts, see e.g.: R. (FCC Environment (UK) Ltd) v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change  Env. L.R. 22; R. (Prideaux) v Buckinghamshire CC  Env. L.R. 32 and R. (Blewett) v Derbyshire CC  Env. L.R. 1.
James has a keen interest in environmental international law. He regularly appears in Geneva before the UNECE Aarhus Compliance Committee and has written and lectured on international environmental law see e.g. International law in domestic practice: advice for practitioners on how international and comparative law arises in domestic case law in the ELM.
His public law practice includes housing (see e.g. Yemshaw v Hounslow LBC  1 W.L.R. 433), social security (including national insurance) (see e.g. Zalewska v Department for Social Development  UKHL 67), education (James was a governor at two state primary schools for 13 years in total and a Chair of Governors for 5 years), regulatory, local government including local government finance (see e.g. R (Cheshire East BC) v Secretary of State for the Environment Queen’s Bench  EWHC 1975 (Admin)); EU law and all aspects of human rights law. He has appeared in a number of high profile public law cases including: R (Sharon Shoesmith) v Ofsted and Others  P.T.S.R. 1459; R (Bradley and others) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions  Q.B. 114; Ken Livingstone v Adjudication Panel for England  H.R.L.R. 45; R v. Bow Street Magistrate, ex p. Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2)  1 A.C. 119 and the Alconbury litigation  2 A.C. 295. He was also part of the counsel team, acting for 169 Iraqi claimants alleging systemic abuse by the Armed forces in Iraq R (Ali Zaki Moussa) v the Secretary of State for Defence (No. 2)  H.R.L.R. 32.
James has particular experience in cases involving the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman the Local Government Ombudsman and the Public Service Ombudsman for Wales. He has been involved in a number of cases concerning public law challenges in the health context: see e.g. Miller v Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman  EWHC 2981 (Admin); R. (Jeremiah) v Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman  EWHC 1085 (Admin); R. (Mencap) v Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman  P.T.S.R. D17; Flasz v Havering Primary Care Trust  EWHC 1487 (Admin) and R (Primary Health Investment Properties Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health  P.T.S.R. 1563.
He is regularly involved in advising in cases involving freedom of information and in particular the Environmental Information Regulations. He was previously a member of the Treasury Solicitor’s Freedom of Information list of Panel Counsel. He has acted in a number of cases in the tribunals on these issues. He is the author of chapter on “Access under the Environmental Information Regulations” in P. Coppell Information Rights Law and Practice 4th ed (2014). He appeared for the UK in Case C-279/12 Fish Legal and another v Information Commissioner  2 W.L.R. 568 (recent decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice on the meaning of “public authority” under Directive 2003/4/EC) and also in Case C-71/14 East Sussex CC v Information Commissioner  P.T.S.R. 179. He is also acting for a number of Government departments in group litigation in respect of property search charges fees said to have been levied contrary to Directive 2003/4/EC.
James was a founder of Judicial Review (Taylor & Francis) with Michael Fordham QC in 1996 and acted as assistant editor and then co-editor for over 20 years. He is now a consultant editor.
In addition to his extensive European Court practice (see above) James has made several appearances before the UNECE Aarhus Compliance Committee in Geneva. He has acted in cases going to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. His international practice also includes cases in the Isle of Man (including before the Staff of Government see e.g. Penfolds v The Treasury) and public law advisory work in Gibraltar and the Turks and Caicos Islands. He has appeared in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand Mick v Removal Review Authority ( NZAR 111).
He regularly appears in the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the General Court of the European Union (formerly the European Court of First Instance) on environmental matters. Recent cases include: Case C-71-14 East Sussex County Council v Information Commissioner  P.T.S.R. 179 (property searches and the Environmental Information Directive); Case C 279/12 Fish Legal & Emily Shirley v The Information Commissioner, United Utilities, Yorkshire Water and Southern Water  2 W.L.R. 568 (the meaning of public authority under the Environmental Information Directive); Case C-43/12 Commission v European Parliament and Council (cross-border exchange of on road safety related traffic offences); Case C 530/11 Commission v United Kingdom and Case C-260/11 Edwards v Environment Agency (costs and environmental judicial reviews); Case C-567/10 Inter-Environnement Bruxelles ASBL, (strategic environmental assessment) 22/3/2012; C-504/09 P Commission v Poland (EU Emissions Trading) 29/03/2012; Case C-474/10 Seaport (NI) Ltd, Magherafelt District Council and Others v Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland (strategic environmental assessment) 20/10/2011 and Case T-369/07 Latvia v Commission (EU Emissions Trading) 22/03/2011.
James regularly advises on the EU public procurement and state aid issues arising in the planning and compulsory purchase context and beyond.
James read Jurisprudence at Hertford College, Oxford (BA First Class Honours in 1994 and BCL First Class in 1995). In his BA he was awarded the Martin Wronker proxime.
He was also previously a part-time College Lecturer in European Law at Hertford College, Oxford.
He has regularly featured in the list of top-rated planning QCs in the annual Planning Magazine Law Survey. In the 2017 survey James was rated the 4th highest rated Planning Silk (jointly with David Elvin QC) with it being said “Maurici attracts praise for his ability to get to grips with “gnarly planning law and policy matters” and his ability to “combine knowledge, intellect and understanding of the legal and policy framework with an appreciation of commercial realities”. He has been lead counsel to the Department for Transport on airport expansion since 2011 and recently successfully struck out a judicial review sought by Greenpeace and several London boroughs attempting to block a third runway at Heathrow. Other victories include acting for the Homes and Communities Agency on a 1,000-home development near Northampton”. He was also rated the joint 4th top rated silk for residential development.
On 19 August 2016 Wainhomes’ appeal had been allowed by the previous Inspector but this was quashed by the High Court, see: in R (West Lancashire Borough Council) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government  EWHC 3451.
On 9 December 2016 the previous Inspector had refused Redrow’s appeal. This decision was quashed by the High Court by consent.
Both appeals fell to be re-determined and a re-opened conjoined inquiry was held on 30 – 31 January and 1 – 2 February 2018.
The Inspector concluded that West Lancashire had a 5 year supply of land.
He also concluded that in calculating completions of housing it was not appropriate to take account of losses of C3 uses (dwelling houses) to C4 uses (HMOs). The debate between the parties on this issue concerned the definition of communal establishments by the Office for National Statistics and in the 2011 census.
James Maurici QC acted for the successful local planning authority, West Lancashire Borough Council.
“the phased development of a new settlement of up to 2,068 dwellings incorporating up to 60 sheltered accommodation units and 8 Gypsy and Traveller pitches and associated infrastructure including accesses onto the A3 (Ockham Interchange), Ockham Lane and Old Lane and revised access to Elm Corner, a secondary school, a primary school, community provision, nursery provision, health facility, a local centre (incorporating food & drink, retail, a visitor centre and offices), employment area, sports and recreational facilities (incorporating a floodlit sports pitch and pavilion). Sustainable drainage Systems and an area of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) incorporating a landform feature and car parking. The erection of associated utilities infrastructure. The development Proposal to incorporate the demolition/ removal of the runway and VOR Beacon (and any associated outbuildings). Outline application, matter for determination access (matters reserved scale, appearance, landscaping and layout”.
Wisley Airfield contains the largest previously developed Site within the Guildford Borough part of the Metropolitan Green Belt and is proposed to be removed from the Green Belt and allocated under draft Allocation A35 of the Proposed Submission Local Plan (‘GBLP’) for a residential and mixed use development.
The appeal is opposed by Guildford Borough Council and a number of other rule 6 parties and is expected to last 5 weeks.
James Maurici QC and Heather Sargent are acting for the appellant Wisley Property Investments Limited instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP.
Hart DC refused this outline application on 7 grounds including the fact that the site was located in one of the Strategic Gaps and the Blackwater Gap protected by policies CON19 and CON20 of the Local Plan. Following a 6 day inquiry the Inspector allowed the appeal. James Maurici QC acted for the appellant Wellbeck Strategic Land LLP.
An Inspector has found that West Lancashire need only apply a 5% buffer to its supply under para. 47 of the NPPF. The Inspector so found in concluding that West Lancashire did not have a 5YLS and that an appeal for up to 150 houses at land east of Prescot Road, Aughton, Ormskirk should be allowed despite a conflict with safeguarded land policies in the West Lancashire Local Plan. James Maurici QC acted for the LPA on a 4 day conjoined inquiry. The decision on the second appeal is awaited.
Successfully acted for developers on appeal for the provision of purpose built Student Accommodation comprising 293 study bedrooms, following the demolition of the existing buildings comprising the Bective Works and Jebez House in Northampton. Please click here for the Appeal Decision.
The Secretary of State today allowed an appeal under s. 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and granted outline planning permission for “a sustainable urban extension to include up to 1,000 dwellings (class C3); a local centre with up to 1,320m2 net floorspace of retail, professional and financial services, and restaurants/ cafes (classes A1, A2 and A3); up to 375m2 net for a public house (class A4); 2.09ha of land for a two-form entry primary school; up to 750m2 for community uses which may include a medical centre, a pharmacy and a community centre (class D1); infrastructure improvements including a pumping station, green infrastructure and highway access” at land to the east of Hardingstone, Northampton.
The appellant was the Homes & Communities Agency. The proposed sustainable urban extension was the subject of Policy N6 of the West Northamptonshire Core Strategy. The local planning authority refused planning permission based on the impact on character and appearance and traffic issues. An Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State held an inquiry that sat for 9 days in June and July 2015. The Secretary of State’s decision to allow the appeal and grant permission in agreement with the Inspector’s recommendation is dated 29 February 2016.
James Maurici QC and Toby Fisher appeared for the Homes and Communities Agency, the appellant, instructed by Walker Morris LLP.
Tim Corner QC and Heather Sargent appeared for Northampton Borough Council.
Acted for the Homes & Communities Agency in a recovered appeal for a Sustainable Urban Extension of 1000 houses, a local centre, school, community uses and other associated infrastructure at land east of Hardingstone, Northampton. The inquiry was in June 2015. Instructed by Walker Morris.
Acted for the developer in a 3 week appeal for a housing scheme in Crowborough in the AONB and challenging Wealden Borough Council’s approach to SANG/SAMMS and nitrogen deposition in relation to the Ashdown Forest SAC/SPA.
Acted for a third party resident in a major planning enforcement appeal concerning unauthorised engineering, mining and building operations and unauthorised change of use of land to recreational fishing lakes and for waste disposal which involved importing some 450,000 cubic metres of waste on to the site. The case is related to the High Court decision in R (Padden) v Maidstone BC  Env LR 20.
The Secretary of State has granted planning permission for a large solar park at a former airfield at Wroughton, Swindon. The application was made by Swindon Commercial Services Limited and the Science Museum. The proposed ground mounted PV solar arrays would on a 67 hectare site would provide c. 40MW generation capacity. The application site lies within the North Downs AONB and was opposed by Natural England, the AONB Unit and English Heritage.
The proposals will generate enough renewable electricity for c 12,000 hones. In addition it would provide an income stream to assist the Science Museum with the preservation and conservation of 35,000 larger objects of national importance as well as half a million library and archive texts it stores in hangers on the former airfield. The items stored include a 140 tonne hot metal printing press, the world’s first Hydrogen fuel car, two Trident missiles, a number of airliners and the Tucker Snow Cat.
James Maurici QC appeared for the applicants, Swindon Commercial Services Limited and the Science Museum, instructed by Pegasus Planning.
Richard Clarke appeared for Swindon Borough Council.
Scott Lyness appeared for English Heritage.
A called-in inquiry into a proposed large solar park at a former airfield at Wroughton, Swindon has now closed. The application was made by Swindon Commercial Services Limited and the Science Museum. The proposed ground mounted PV solar arrays would on a 67 hectare site would provide c. 40MW generation capacity. The application site lies within the North Downs AONB.
Swindon Borough Council resolved to grant planning permission in December 2013 but the application was called in by the Secretary of State.
The inquiry sat for 7 days commencing on Tuesday 9 September 2014 and closing on Friday 19 September 2014.
For press coverage, click here.
James Maurici QC appeared for the applicants instructed by Pegasus Planning.
On 11 July 2014 the Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government confirmed the London Borough of Haringey (Northumberland Development Project) (No 1) Compulsory Purchase Order 2012.
The Order authorises the compulsory purchase of lands at Paxton Road, High Road and Bill Nicholson Way, Tottenham, London N17 for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out of development, redevelopment or improvement of the land comprising the demolition of existing buildings and comprehensive redevelopment to provide a new stadium and ancillary uses such as Club museum; shop and offices for the Tottenham Hotspur Foundation; residential; college and/or health centre and/or health club uses; and public realm improvements.
For press coverage click here.
A copy of the decision letter can be found here.
Tim Corner QC and Christopher Katkowski QC appeared at the inquiry for Haringey Borough Council and Tottenham Hotspur Football Club.
James Maurici QC acted for Tottenham Hotspur Football Club on State aid issues.
Christopher Lockhart-Mummery QC appeared at the inquiry for the one remaining objector, the Josif family and Archway Sheet Metal Works Limited, instructed by Paul Winter & Co.
Stephen Whale represented the Secretary of State.
Successfully acting on appeal for the Barrowlands Company in securing a 504 house scheme in Barrow, in the Ribble Valley.
On 14th January the examination hearings begin in relation to the Ribble Valley Borough Council Core Strategy 2008 – 2028 A local Plan for Ribble Valley.
James Maurici QC is appearing for the Barrow Lands Company Limited (“BLCL”) instructed by David Lock Associates. He has also appeared for BLCL at two recent recovered appeals for 504 and 190 houses on land at Whalley Road, Barrow.
On Tuesday 10th January 2012 an inquiry opened into an appeal by Walshaw Moor Estate in respect of a notice of modification of consent issued by Natural England under s. 28E(6) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
The Appellant either owns or has the benefit of sporting rights leased to it over approximately 6475ha of Walshaw Moor and Lancashire Moor. It mainly manages the land as a driven grouse moor. The challenged notice of modification of consent seeks significantly to restrict certain management activities such as prescribed burning of heather and grazing.
The land in question forms part of the South Pennine Moors SSSI, the South Pennine Moors SAC and the South Pennine Moors SPA. The inquiry will examine not only important questions of moorland ecology, grazing and burning of heather for grouse rearing, in areas of blanket bog and heathland habitats, but also the Secretary of State’s powers and duties under the Habitats Directive and Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Despite earlier contrary statements, Natural England now seeks to ban all burning on blanket bog, whether previously burned or not.
The inquiry is due to sit until 4 February 2012.
David Elvin QC, James Maurici and Richard Moules are appearing for the Appellant.
Following the High Court judgment in Akester  EWHC 232 (Admin), applications for shore and recharge works for the Wightlink ferry service from Lymington to Yarmouth on the Isle of Wight were submitted, the entire project comprising those works and the running of the ferries. The recharge works to take place on SPA habitats in close proximity to the ferry route would ensure that the works to recharge degrading saltmarsh and mudflat habitat (which would be lost to natural forces in any event over the medium term) would offset the impact from the ferries and protect the SPA habitat for many years longer than they would survive naturally.
Following negotiations over a flexible adaptive and monitoring mechanism to ensure the efficacy of the recharge works, Natural England and the local authorities withdrew their opposition to the project. A two week inquiry was held in October 2011 at which opposition was maintained by the Lymington River Association and others. Today the Inspector issued her decision letter granting planning permission and agreeing that the project taken as a whole (including the recharge works and the adaptive mechanism) would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA under the Habitats Regulations 2010 and the Habitats Directive, having carried out an appropriate assessment. The Inspector also accepted, in the planning context (though not in terms of the appropriate assessment) that the economic and social importance of the ferries to the Isle of Wight was considerable and a weighty consideration in favour of the grant of permission.
David Elvin QC and James Maurici represented Wightlink Limited.
2010 – 2011 has seen a number of determinations of appeals under the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Regulations 2005 (“the 2005 Regulations”). Prior to this year the only appeal determinations in England and Wales under the 2005 Regulations were one made by the Welsh Ministers in the Alphasteel case (ENDS 2008, 401, 64-65) against a civil penalty notice and one by an Inspector in England against the refusal to allocate allowances from the missing and late reserve under reg. 22A of the 2005 Regulations (APP/ETS/06/02 University Hospital of North Durham v Defra).
While the determinations are available on the DECC website the more detailed reports (all by David Hart QC following non-statutory inquiries) on which the determinations are based have not been published.
The EU ETS is the key policy introduced by the EU to help reduce the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions. The EU ETS is based on Directive 2003/87/EC which established a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community. The Directive is implemented by the 2005 Regulations. Regulation 7 provides that: “No person shall carry out a Schedule 1 activity resulting in specified emissions, except under and to the extent authorised by a greenhouse gas emissions permit.” Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 sets out the activities and “specified emissions” which require operators to hold a greenhouse gas emissions permit. The specified emissions are “carbon dioxide”.
“(1) Where an operator has ceased carrying out in an installation all of the Schedule 1 activities authorised by a greenhouse gas emissions permit in relation to that installation, the operator shall apply to the regulator to surrender the permit.
Pursuant to regulation 24, operators which cease to carry out a Schedule 1 activity in an installation may apply to retain these allowances where provided for in the NAP (regulation 24(1)). These are referred to as “rationalisation applications”.
Regulation 32(2) provides that “a person…on whom a revocation notice…is served may appeal to the appropriate authority…” in England that is the Secretary of State for Climate Change, in Wales it is the Welsh Ministers and in Northern Ireland the Planning Appeals Commission.
Regulation 20(1) provides that “the Secretary of State shall develop a national allocation plan in respect of the second scheme phases and in respect of each subsequent scheme phase”. Regulation 20(3) states that “[t]he Secretary of State shall publish in England the national allocation plan developed for each scheme phase…” The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2007 (“the 2007 Regulations”) came into force on 1 May 2007. Regulation 2 provides that for the purposes of the 2005 Regulations, “the document entitled “EU Emissions Trading scheme: Approved Phase II National Allocation Plan 2008-2012″ published by the Secretary of State on 16 March 2007 is specified as the approved national allocation plan for the five year period beginning on 1st January 2008” (“the NAP”).
There has also this year been a determination on a revocation notice appeal in Northern Ireland (Commission Reference: 2010/IP001) in respect of which both the determination and the Planning Appeals Commission report is available. The case concerns Ibstock Brick Limited.
James Maurici acted for the Environment Agency in the Alphasteel, Wienerberger Limited, Premier Foods Group Limited and White’s Recycling Solutions Limited appeals.
David Forsdick acted for the NIEA in the Ibstock Brick Limited.
Simon Pickles acted for the appellants in the White’s Recycling and University Hospital of North Durham appeals.
James Maurici successfully acted for the Hon. Charles Pearson in promoting an order to divert and extinguish various footpaths and bridleways at the Pitshill Estate, near Petworth. The orders were confirmed despite continued objection from the County Council, the Ramblers and Open Spaces Society. For media coverage click here.
James Maurici is acting for Fairview Homes on inquiry in respect of a 235 unit residential scheme at Draper’s Yard in Thurrock.
The Secretary of State today agreed with the recommendation of her Inspector and granted planning permission on a called-in application for the redevelopment of existing industrial, storage and related uses to provide an industrial and warehousing estate in the Green Belt at Bedfont Road, East Bedfont, Middlesex, London, TW14 8EE.
The existing uses occupying the land were in large part unauthorised but had become immune. The existing uses had developed in a haphazard manner. They were unsightly, noisy and wholly uncontrolled. The Inspector and Secretary of State considered that significant weight could be attached to the fact that the proposals would replace these uses with a modern well designed industrial and warehousing estate meeting modern efficiency and sustainability standards. They also attached substantial weight to a wide-ranging package of environmental improvements to, and uses of, open land surrounding the estate. It was concluded that but for Green Belt issues the proposals were supported by the Development Plan. The view taken was that the merits of the proposed development would clearly outweigh harm to the Green Belt.
See for media coverage, please click here.
James Maurici appeared for the LB of Hounslow which supported the grant of planning permission.
Alphasteel Limited, which carries out steel production at Corporation Road, Newport, appealed pursuant to reg. 32(3)(e) of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Regulations 2005 (“the 2005 Regulations”) against a civil penalty notice dated 6 December 2006 served by the Environment Agency because Alphasteel failed to comply with a condition imposed pursuant to reg. 10(3) of the 2005 Regulations. This required Alphasteel to surrender allowances equal to the annual reportable emissions from its installation by the end of April 2006.
scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Community. The scheme is the largest multi-country, multi-sector greenhouse gas emission trading scheme world-wide.
This is believed to be the first ever appeal in the UK (or indeed in Europe) against such a civil penalty notice.
An appeal hearing took place in the summer of 2007 and on 6 March 2008 the Welsh Ministers issued a decision affirming the notice and requiring Alphasteel to pay the penalty of £564,599.93 plus interest.
James Maurici appeared for the Environment Agency.
Recovered appeal for a mixed-use scheme, including 283 apartments.
Call-in inquiry for outline permission for a 6.8 hectare residential development.

References: UKSC 
 CJEU 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 UKSC 
 UKHL 
 v.