Best of the big three cases this year – better than Chesire East and Barwood (its ostensibly is a part q fall back vase – dont you just loathe part q more than anything this side of Jupiter) but it was as a court of appeal case it gave the entire bench to let rip at how hyperjudical the government has let the planning system become because of its vague and awful drafting of planning policy and GPDO amendments.
Mansall v Tonbridge and Malling – Court of Appeal
Still not published .
If only because of last section where the Chncellor of the High Court – agreeing with the ever more pissed off LJ Linblom since Barwood says
Appeals should not, in future, be mounted on the basis of a legalistic analysis of the different formulations adopted in a planning officer’s report. An appeal will only succeed, as Lindblom L.J. has said, if there is some distinct and material defect in the report. Such reports are not, and should not be, written for lawyers, but for Councillors who are well-versed in local affairs and local factors.
So on what basis will they succeed on, especially as defects in reports can and should be pointed out before decisions nowadays that reports are usually available some days before meetings? How will planning lawyers make a living from now on? Full inquiries are rare now, local plan inquiries abolished. Perhaps they should take up Shipping law or something instead? Im sure KitKat would make a wonderful judge at the St Helena High Court.
Chateau de Thames all round. 65 Pump Court, perhaps introduce a new part Z for PD rights of conversion of former barristers chambers. Im sure some could reskill as they almost are well trained enough to understand part q and part n. Some intensive livestock units site visits need doing, seeing of the slurry reservoirs really are than smelly 400m away – someone has to do it after all and those poor souls are now a necessary charity case.
Im only half joking, read the judgment in full a must read.