Source: https://www.39essex.com/barrister/paul-stinchcombe-qc/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 09:59:16+00:00

Document:
Paul Stinchcombe QC was called to the Bar in 1985 and built up a substantial practice in planning, public and environmental law before becoming an MP in 1997. After returning to the Bar in May 2005, Paul rapidly re-built his practice and was elevated to Queen’s Counsel within 6 years. Having successfully argued one of the most important planning cases in recent years – Hunston Properties  EWCA Civ 1610, the first judicial decision on “objectively assessed housing needs” (OAN) – Paul has appeared in some of the largest Planning Inquiries regarding housing proposals in the country, acting both for and against developers. They include (in 2016-17) promoting “Drake Park”, a proposed development of over 1,000 homes in the Surrey Green Belt; resisting, on behalf of Joint Parish Councils, a new settlement of 1,600 homes at Dunsfold Park, also in Surrey; and acting on behalf of Local Planning Authorities in a dozen other multi-day Inquiries, resisting over 3,000 homes pending the replacement of Local Plans.
Paul graduated from Cambridge University with a Double First in Law and from Harvard Law School with a Masters, having won a Frank Knox Fellowship. In 2005, Paul was elected as a Visiting Fellow to Cambridge University’s Centre of Public Law.
William Davis (and Others) v. Charnwood Borough Council  EWHC 3006 (Admin), concerning the differences between “Development Plan Documents” (which can only be adopted by a Local Planning Authority after independent examination) and “Supplementary Planning Documents (which can be adopted after consultation only, and without independent examination).
Hallam Land Management v SSCLG and Eastleigh Borough Council  EWHC 2865 (Admin), leading Ned Helme in a case concerning the proper approach to gap policy and whether an exact calculation of housing land supply is required.
R (Government of the Republic of France) v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council  1 WLR 3206, leading Ned Helme for the Government of the Republic of France in a case concerning the scope of certificates of lawfulness under section 191 and 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section 26H of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
R (Thorpe-Kerr) v. (1) London Borough of Wandsworth (2) Thornsett Development Limited (CO/2666/2016), a judicial review concerning the lawfulness of a decision to approve a construction management plan on a constrained back-land site.
R (Gibson) v. Waverley Borough Council  EWHC 3784 (Admin), leading Ned Helme in a second challenge against a decision to redevelop the house in which Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote the Hound of the Baskervilles.
St Albans DC v. SSCLG & Ors  EWHC 655 (Admin), acting for STRiFE Ltd., leading Ned Helme in a section 288 challenge to the grant of permission for a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange near St Albans.
R (Tesco Stores Limited) v. (1) Forest of Dean District Council (2) Asda Stores Limited and Others  EWCA Civ 800;  EWHC 3348 (Admin), successfully appearing for Asda (when the Council did not appear), defending the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for an Asda superstore in Lydney; and thereafter successfully defending the decision (with Jonathan Darby) in the Court of Appeal and on behalf of the landowner when neither the Respondent nor any other Interested Party appeared to resist the appeal.
R ((1) Peter Sanders (2) Brian Ross) v. (1) Airports Commission (2) Secretary of State for Transport  EWHC3754 (Admin), leading Ned Helme in a high profile apparent bias judicial review relating to the workings of the Airports Commission, the body tasked by the Secretary of State for Transport with addressing the heated issue of aviation expansion in the UK.
Hunston Properties Limited v. (1) Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and (2) St Albans City and District Council  EWCA Civ 1610 (on appeal from  EWHC 2678 (Admin)), leading Ned Helme in a successful and landmark challenge against an Inspector’s decision to refuse planning permission for 132 dwellings on a Green Belt site, the first case on the proper interpretation of paragraph 47 of the NPPF and the assessment of housing needs following the revocation of Spatial Strategies.
R (Skinner and Alvarado) v. London Borough of Haringey,  EWHC 1475 (Admin), leading Ned Helme in successfully resisting an application for judicial review of a planning permission and conservation area consent granted for a comprehensive redevelopment of a key regeneration site at Wards Corner (off Tottenham High Road in London).
Avon Estates Ltd v. Welsh Ministers & Ceredigion County Council  EWHC 1796 (Admin), successfully defending an Inspector’s decision to refuse to grant a Certificate of Lawfulness in respect of a proposed use of holiday homes in a holiday park as unrestricted dwellings.
R (Gibson) v. Waverley Borough Council  EWHC 1472 (Admin), leading Ned Helme in a successful challenge against a decision to redevelop the house in which Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote the Hound of the Baskervilles (for which Paul was named ‘Lawyer of the Week’ in the Times). The judgment was described by English Heritage as “the principal case law on the question of optimal viable use” in respect of heritage assets.
Vallis v. The Secretary of State for Local Government  EWHC 578 (Admin), a successful challenge against a decision which would have required the demolition of an historic barn.
Trad Scaffolding Co. Ltd. v. London Thames Gateway Development Corporation  EWHC 314 (Admin), in which Paul successfully defended the planning permission for a new town centre, including superstore, housing and a school.
Avon Estates Ltd v. Welsh Ministers & Ceredigion County Council  EWCA Civ 553,  EWHC 1759 (Admin), concerning the extent to which planning conditions restricting the use of a holiday park can have legal effect after the expiry of the permission to which they were attached.
Stop Pyestock Blot Act Today (SPLAT) v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government  EWHC 1520 (Admin), challenging the decision to grant consent for a huge logistics park contrary to the Inspector’s recommendation.
Sumner v. Secretary of State  EWHC 372 (Admin), concerning the lawful use to which a building can be put when erected without permission and time has expired within which the building might be enforced against.
Hutchinson v. Secretary of State  EWHC 304 (Admin),  EWCA Civ 1494, concerning the interpretation of national Green Belt policy and the capacity of Local Authorities to rewrite its concepts.
Barbone and Ross v. Secretaries of State  EWHC 463 (Admin), a challenge to the decision to permit 10 million additional passengers a year at Stansted Airport.
R (Corrie) v. Suffolk County Council  All ER (D) 214 (Jul);  EWHC 2490 (Admin), successfully defending the decision of the Waste Authority to grant itself planning permission for a new waste facility, in which it was held that it would be contrary to the conduct of good administration and legal certainty for a claimant to hold off from challenging a screening direction of the Secretary of State, thereby leaving a local planning authority in the position where it had no choice but to act in accordance with that direction, only to seek later to impugn the decision to grant planning permission on the basis that it was flawed.
R (Karen Treagus) v. Suffolk County Council  EWHC 950 (Admin), successfully resting an application for judicial review of a planning permission granted for an anaerobic digestion plant.
Bishopsgate Parking and Powerfocal v. The Welsh Ministers  UKUT 22 (LC) where Paul successfully represented the Welsh Ministers in a £90m Lands Tribunal claim following a compulsory acquisition of land in Cardiff City Centre.
Block Stone Ltd. v. English Heritage LCA/5/2006, acting for English Heritage in a £3m Lands Tribunal claim in respect of a refusal to renew a mining consent near to a Scheduled Monument.
Ocean Leisure Ltd v. Westminster City Council  EWCA Civ 970, a leading compensation case involving claims for loss caused to a business by hoardings obstructing the highway.
Wildtree Hotels Ltd v. Harrow London Borough Council  2 AC 1, another leading compensation case involving claims for loss caused to a business, this time by noise and dust.
Paul promoted “Drake Park”, a garden village development of up to 1,024 residential units on a Green Belt site in Elmbridge, Surrey.
– Bespoke “grand design” houses in the South Downs National Park (6,000 sq.ft each), and in both Kensington & Chelsea in Hampstead (the latter two designed by Richard Reid).
Immediately before taking silk, Paul promoted a 580 house development in East London.
Paul has recently appeared in a dozen Planning Inquiries for a Local Planning Authorities resisting in excess of 3,000 homes pending the replacement of Local Plans and the establishment of a 5-year supply of housing.
– Aviation: Paul appeared for “Stop Stansted Expansion” in the 49 day 2007 Inquiry against the expansion of Stansted Airport.
– Urban Extension: Paul represented “Stop Pyestock B” Act today, resisting 133,000 sq.m of development in a Strategic Gap.
– Eco-Town: Leading Ned Helme for “Stop Dunsfold Park New Town” in the first Planning Inquiry into an eco-town, Paul successfully resisted 2,600 homes and 60,000 sq.m of commercial floorspace.
– New Town: Leading Victoria Hutton, Paul appeared on behalf of ten “Joint Parish Councils” on a related proposal (to the above eco-town) for 1,600 homes.
– Strategic Railfreight Interchange: Having successfully resisted a 330,000 sq.m interchange on a 72ha site Green Belt site in a 2007 Inquiry for “STRiFE”, Paul successfully led Ned Helme in a repeat Inquiry in 2009.
R (Daws Hill Neighbourhood Forum) v. Wycombe District Council  EWCA Civ 228;  EWHC 513 (Admin). Appearing in both the High Court and Court of Appeal on behalf of Daws Hill Neighbourhood Forum in the first ever legal challenge regarding Neighbourhood Planning.
R (Daws Hill Neighbourhood Forum) v. Wycombe District Council  EWCA Civ 228;  EWHC 513 (Admin), representing Daws Hill Neighbourhood Forum in a landmark case, the first to consider the Neighbourhood Planning provisions of the Localism Act 2011.
R (Kings Cross Railway Lands Group) v. LB Camden  EWHC 1515 (Admin), affirming the right of Local Authorities to change their mind on planning applications after a change of political control.
R (Westminster City Council) v. The Rent Service [CO/11653/2007], successfully preventing changes which would have cut the housing benefit for very many of the Council’s residents, on the grounds that this would breach the legitimate expectation of the Council.
O’Connor v. Wiltshire County Council  EWCA Civ 426.
Thomas v. Bridgend County Borough Council  EWCA Civ 862.
Paul has appeared in numerous Boundary Commission hearing – including in Southwark, Greater Manchester and Wakefield – and was instructed in a judicial review of the latter by the local MPs – Yvette Cooper MP, Ed Balls MP, Jon Trickett MP and Mary Creagh MP.

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