Source: https://cornerstonebarristers.com/barrister/wayne-beglan/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 06:54:16+00:00

Document:
Wayne Beglan undertakes most forms of local government work and also has a wide private client base.
He has particular expertise in judicial review, planning, housing, regeneration, landlord and tenant, employment, procurement and contractual work for local authorities, RPs, developers and corporations.
He has particular expertise in judicial review, planning, housing, regeneration, landlord and tenant, employment, procurement and contractual work for local authorities, developers, RPs and corporations. He has appeared in a significant number of call in planning applications / recovered appeals over the last 3 years. He appears in various tribunals; and has extensive experience in the high court and significant experience in the appellate courts.
He is recognized as a leading junior barrister in planning, administrative law, local government, and housing. He appears in Chambers & Partners and the Legal 500. He is currently retained to promote local plans for Waverley, Welwyn Hatfield, Harlow and Tandridge. He successfully promoted the Luton LP in 2017.
Wayne is recognised as a leading junior in planning law in Chambers & Partners,. He has recently promoted successfully adopted local plans and appeared at a significant number of call-in inquiries and appeals recovered by the Secretary of State. He is frequently involved in statutory challenges of planning decisions. He advises in relation to EIA, s.106 and CIL matters; as well as all stages of local plan preparation.
Advice and 6 week call-in inquiry in relation to the proposed RERF/incinerator at New Barnfield, Welwyn – successfully resisting the scheme on behalf of Welwyn HC. He also appeared in the related s.288 challenge.
Representing local planning authorities in preserving the confidentiality of sensitive information relating to the viability of significant developments.
Judicial review / s.288 in relation to the correct approach to highway safety (DMRB vs M4S) – successfully resisting claims made against the LPA (Alderson v. SoSCLG & Wealden DC, 25.11.14, Admin).
Inquiry in relation to appeal relating to 12 unit gypsy and traveller site.
Advising a London authority in relation to the West London Waste Plan.
Judicial review of SoS refusal to call-in a decision relating to the provision of 5,000 new homes.
Advising on large retail schemes for two local authorities in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire.
Judicial review and prosecutions in relation to BT advertising on behalf of two LPA's (Bridgend and Colchester) – successful in securing the withdrawal of the JR and removal of the offending adverts.
Advice in relation to viability analysis, s.106 agreement, and proper approach to a 200 dwelling scheme (Great Blakenham, Suffolk).
Advice in relation to the proper approach to a 30 unit residential scheme in Sussex.
Advice and inquiry relating to a proposed development of 350 dwellings (Shutterton Park, Devon).
Judicial review relating to a grant of permission for a 17 unit scheme – successfully resisted the challenge (South Northamptonshire DC v SoSCLG & Plummer,  EWHC 4377 (Admin)).
Statutory challenge relating to the refusal of the Welsh Ministers to grant permission for a regeneration scheme (Burry Port, Carmarthenshire;  EWHC 3293 (Admin).
Advice and inquiry relating to a proposed development of 185 dwellings (Bradley Road, Devon).
Inquiry in relation to a c. 100 unit scheme in Elmbridge (The Pavilion, Hurst Lane) – successfully resisting the appeal on two occasions relating to different schemes.
Judicial review relating to the correct approach for defining the extent of neighbourhood areas. Successful in HC (Daws Hill Neighbourhood Forum v. Wycombe DC & Ors  PTSR 970).
Judicial review relating to redevelopment affecting the setting of a World Heritage Site (The Longboat Café, Budleigh Salterton;  EWHC 4114, Admin).
Inquiry relating to an new urban edge for Harlow, 1,200 dwellings – Harlowbury.
Inquiry in relation to an 80 dwelling site forming part of a proposed strategic allocation west of Stafford.
Securing an injunction in relation to an Occupy London site (Hackney LBC v. Persons Unknown – 27 June 2012).
Roads CPO inquiry into the Cogges Link Road in Witney– appearance on behalf of a statutory objector - successfully resisting the making of the CPO. Acting in a linked judicial review.
R (Davies) v. Stafford BC  EWHC 971 (Admin) – successfully resisting challenge to grant of planning permission.
Appearing in Garner v. Elmbridge BC and Ors (redevelopment of Hampton Court Palace) – Supreme Court – successfully resisting the appeal to the S Ct at the permission stage.
Inquiry relating to an application for 450 student dwellings – College Road, Welwyn – successfully resisting the appeal.
Hearing into an 80 unit scheme in Elmbridge – successfully resisting the appeal.
Advising a Sussex authority in relation to an urban edge of c. 1,000 dwellings.
Appearing in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court (Feb 2011) in the case of Beesley – successful appeal in the S Ct. This case is the leading case on the use of deception in seeking immunity from planning control: Welwyn Hatfield Council v. Beesley  2 AC 304.
By a decision dated 16 July 2015 the Secretary of State, adopting in substance the reasons given by his inspector, has maintained his refusal of a planning permission for a substantial Recycling and Energy Recovery Facility, with a capacity of 380,000 tonnes per annum and volume of 585,000 m3, at land at New Barnfield in Welwyn, following a legal challenge in the High Court.
Claim brought under s 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act challenging a decision of an inspector to grant a lawful development certificate in respect of the use of a building which had been constructed for the purpose of use as a barn but which, in fact, had been used as a dwelling house. The case turned upon the true construction of the relevant provisions of s 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
The High Court, in a robust defence of local authority decision making, has dismissed an application for judicial review of Stafford Borough Council's grant of planning permission for a slurry store.
He is recognised as a leading junior in administrative law, local government and social housing. He acts for local housing authorities, registered social landlords, and national housebuilders.
He advises on and appears in high court and county court claims involving Parts 5, 6 and 7 of the Housing Act 1996; the Housing Act 1985 and the Housing Act 1988. He has advised several authorities on policy issues including regeneration schemes, allocation schemes, local letting policies, out of area placement policies, homelessness strategies and discrimination issues of various kinds. He advises on and appears in cases dealing with construction of contracts in various settings related to redevelopment and housing. He also advises and deals with litigation involving procurement contracts.
WB v W Council  EWCA Civ 928;  WLR (D) 256. Case discussing the limits of the interpretative duty contained in s.3 Human Rights Act 1998.
Peterborough CC v. White & Anr . High Court injunction preventing known aggressive rough sleepers from using a popular arcade in Peterborough.
R (Turley) v Wandsworth LBC  EWCA Civ 189;  HLR 21. Case concerning whether the HA 1985 succession provisions for secure tenancies are discriminatory.
Boland v Bridgend CBC  UKUT 174 (LC) - correct approach to a CAAD involving settlement boundaries.
Earlier cases in which he has appeared in the High Court and Court of Appeal across a variety of subjects in the housing field include: Poorsalehy  EWHC 3687 (QB); Hackney LBC v PU  EWHC 2828 (QB); Raw  EWHC 507; Barber  EWCA Civ 51,  HLR 26; McKenzie  EWHC 1097; Dixon  EWHC 27,  L&TR 28; Lee  EWCA Civ 1013; Nipyo  EWHC 847,  HLR 37; Green  EWCA Civ 1367,  HLR 28; Watchman  EWCA Civ 348,  HLR 33; Danesh  EWCA Civ 1404,  1 WLR 69; Lee-Lawrence  EWCA Civ 1672; Ozbek  EWCA Civ 534,  HLR 41; Calgin  EWHC 1716,  1 All ER 112; Hall  EWCA Civ 1740,  2 All ER 192.
In a recent case the Court of Appeal has held that a local authority offering accommodation to a homeless applicant who complained about its condition, was not obliged to carry out a hazard inspection and assessment before deciding on the suitability of the accommodation offered.
Is a woman's refuge accommodation?
ayne Beglan acted successfully for the defendant; the court upholding Wandsworth LBC's decision that the claimant was ineligible for housing accommodation.
Wayne Beglan and James Findlay QC acted successfully for Ipswich BC in this joined hearing of two appeals regarding whether a women's refuge constituted "accommodation" for the purposes of the Housing Act 1996 Pt VII.
two recent cases the High Court has considered whether there were "good reasons" to extend the 21-day time limit to appeal under s.204 Housing Act 1996: Peake v London Borough of Hackney  EWHC 2528 (QB) and Poorsalehy v London Borough of Wandsworth  EWHC 3687 (QB).
He is recognised as a leading junior in local government, administrative law, planning and social housing. He acts for local housing authorities, registered social landlords, national housebuilders and private land owners.
He has extensive experience of dealing with issues arising from the ownership of land including dealing with section 106 agreements, easements, restrictive and positive covenants, boundary disputes, trusts of land, and redevelopment of land.
Firoozmand v LB Lambeth  EWCA Civ 952;  PTSR 65;  HLR 45 - correct approach to applying HHSRS to Part VII HA 1996 applications.
The appellant, a gypsy, claimed that her Article 8 rights had been infringed by the accepted failure of the authority to provide her with a pitch on an existing site or considering whether to provide new pitches. The court clarified the guidance given in Codona (2004).
Wayne Beglan, Peggy Etiebet and Jon Holbrook.
He is recognised as a leading junior in administrative law, local government, planning and housing; and appears in both Chambers & Partners and the Legal 500.
Wayne acts for local authorities, registered social landlords, and developers. This means he has expertise in judicial review of housing decisions, planning decisions, and the exercise of local authority powers more generally. His exposure to Judicial Review cases is extensive. He routinely advises on High Court matters for a large number of local authorities and is instructed by a wide number of local authorities in dealing with planning, housing, employment, and contractual work. He frequently deals with procurement issues arising from significant redevelopment projects including the use of Development Agreements; as well as issues arising from shared services and rationalisation of services. He is currently promoting emerging local plans on behalf of Welwyn Hatfield, Harlow and Tandridge. In 2017/2018 he acted for Luton and Waverley in the successful adoption of their plans. Wayne is a co-author of Cornerstone on Councillor's Conduct and conducts investigations into allegations of code breaches.
Wayne is experienced in dealing with commercial matters, general regulatory issues and criminal regulatory proceedings.
His planning experience and housing experience are set out under those practice areas.
DVT cases in the House of Lords.
VWF cases for the miners.
Defending health and safety fatal accident claims.
Adaption of commercial properties to comply with health and safety regulations.
Food safety prosecutions involving a major supermarket.
Prosecutions for breaches of the Planning Acts and Building Acts.
EmploymentWork includes advising and appearing for applicants and respondents in the E.T. and E.A.T. dealing with all aspects of employment law including discrimination work and T.U.P.E. He has extensive experience of dealing with redundancy, re-organisation and co-sourcing issues arising within a local government context. He also has significant experience of the operation of the Local Government Pension Scheme.
Wayne Beglan has written an article for Lexis PSL on the decision in R (on the application of XPL Ltd) v Harlow Council, which concerned the issuing of a breach of condition notice. Wayne explains the background to the case and considers how the decision will impact the approach taken by the court when interpreting the scope of planning conditions.
Click here to view the full article. This article was first published on Lexis(r)PSL 23rd May 2016.
Wayne Beglan has authored an article for LexisPSL on the key points of interest for local government practitioners in the Queen's Speech. In particular, Wayne looks at governance and the extent of powers held by various departments in local government and what this means for neighbourhood planning and compulsory purchase.
The Chancery Division of the High Court has held that it could infer the existence of a building scheme on the 'Moon Estate' in Gerrards Cross and dismissed an application under s84(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 for a declaration that restrictive covenants imposed under the scheme were unenforceable by neighbouring landowners. His Honour Judge Behrens QC inferred the existence of the scheme from the imposition of "substantially" similar restrictive covenants imposed in a series of conveyances over 100 years ago, which were found to apply in respect of a defined estate area and to be mutually enforceable between the purchasers of the land.
On 16 March 2015 the High Court made permanent an interim injunction prohibiting 15 identified members of a travelling family from occupying any one of 26 parks within the London Borough of Hackney, identified as those most at risk from occupation. The Council's claim for an injunction was based both on its ownership of the relevant land and in the exercise of its planning powers under section 187B TCPA 1990.
In dismissing an appeal made by Fairview New Homes from the decision of Runnymede BC to refuse permission for the erection of 89 residential units including 22 affordable units the inspector identified the main issue as being whether the release of the site was necessary to meet the housing needs of the borough and, if not, whether the benefits of the scheme would outweigh any harm arising out of the development.
In R (o.a.o. 93 Feet East Ltd) v Tower Hamlets LBC (16th July 2013), the High Court has resolved a question that has troubled licensing lawyers since December 2011, when a district judge ruled that the DCMS guidance was wrong to say that interim steps imposed on a summary review under the Licensing Act 2003 remained in force pending appeal. In refusing permission to apply for judicial review, Dingemans J. ruled that the guidance had been right after all.
Mark Lowe QC and Wayne Beglan, instructed by Burges Salmon, appeared for the Mawle Trustees as the sole statutory objectors to the Cogges Link Road CPO inquiry at Witney last November over a period of four weeks.
Case testing whether the rule in (1993) remains good law following the enactment of the HRA 1998.
Wayne Beglan acted successfully for Brighton & Hove CC in this challenge to its parking regulation system. The challenge was based on (amongst other things) allegations of abuse of power and anti-competitive effect. The claimant sought, but failed, to cancel 340 PCNs issued to it and failed to obtain the declaratory relief it sought to bind the defendant in its future dealings with the claimant, whilst obtaining a declaration that the defendant's old parking policy was, for about 6 months, unlawful.
High court planning challenge to inspector's reasoning and approach to imposition of conditions. The case related to a planning authority's ability to impose conditions to control use of premises in cases of residential conversion. The judgment resolved conflicting inspector's decision letters which the authority had received on that point (in their favour).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 EWCA 
 v. 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA