Podcast Location:
Download it here [file size: 25 MB]
Categories:
Environmental Law
Planning
CPD Points:
Up to 1 point. details »

Due to the difference in guidelines between the SRA and the Bar Standards Board, CPD points are awarded differently for Solicitors, Barristers and Legal Executives:

Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Regulated by the Bar Standards Board:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 accredited CPD point (60 minutes)

Regulated by ILEX:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Cost:
  • FREE
Length:
30 minutes of audio
(+ optional 5 minute online quiz)
Plays on Computer:
Yes Downloadable as MP3:    Yes
Contributor(s):
Course Aims:

In this two-part CPDcast series James Maurici from Landmark Chambers discusses important recent developments in Planning and Environmental law. This will include a consideration of Aarhus and access to justice in environmental matters and the continuing influence this is having on costs. It will also look at other areas in which Aarhus has had and will continue to have influence most notably: the availability of interim relief; standing; and delay and promptness. It will then look at other developments in respect of costs, most notably the Bahta case. It will also touch on important developments in Judicial Review and the Upper Tribunal before considering disclosure.

Outcomes:
After completing the course you will:
  • Be aware of the main issues to occupy the courts in relation to costs and Aarhus;
  • Have considered proposed changes to the rules relevant to protected costs in Environmental Judicial Review Claims;
  • Be aware of the influence of Aarhus in respect of the availability of interim relief;
  • Be aware of the influence of Aarhus in respect of standing and the promptness requirement in the Planning and Environmental context;
  • Understand how the Judicial Review and Tribunal system has recently developed;
  • Have considered developments relating to disclosure.
Level:
Specialist Difficulty: 5 of 5
Classification:
Case Update
Legal Principles
Legislative Updates
Practical Guide
Procedural
Sources and References:
  • Ashton v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Coin Street Community Builders Ltd [2011] 1 P. & C.R. 5;
  • Belize Alliance of Conservation Non-Governmental Organisations v Department of the Environment of Belize [2003] 1 W.L.R. 2839;
  • C-406/08 Uniplex (UK) Ltd v NHS Business Services Authority Case C-115/09 Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland, Landesverband Nordrhein‑Westfalen eV v Bezirksregierung Arnsberg (judgment 12 May 2011);
  • Case C-263/08 Djurgarden-Lilla Vartans Miljoskyddsforening v Stockholms Kommun genom dess Marknamnd [2009] E.C.R. I-9967;
  • Case C-341/95 Safety Hi-Tech v. S&T Srl [1998] E.C.R. I-4355;
  • Case C-427/07 Commission of the European Communities v Ireland [2009] E.C.R. I-6277; [2010] Env. L.R. 8;
  • Case C-69/94 Commission v. Germany [1996] E.C.R. I-3989 Commission v Ireland [2009] E.C.R. I-6277;
  • Cultra Residents’ Association case (ACCC/C/2008/27) EA/2010/0204 Robinson v. Information Commissioner & Department for Communities and Local Government;
  • Harding v Cork County Council [2008] IECS 27;
  • Hardy v Pembrokeshire CC [2006] Env. L.R. 28;
  • Morgan and Baker v Hinton Organics (Wessex) Ltd [2009] C.P. Rep. 26;
  • Morgan case (ACCC/2008/23);
  • R (Armstrong) v LB of Tower Hamlets CO/13115/20009;
  • R (Bahta) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 895;
  • R (Berky) v Newport City Council [2011] EWHC 2100 (Admin);
  • R (Birch) v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council [2009] EWHC 3561(Admin);
  • R (Boxall) v Waltham Forest LBC (2001) 4 CCL Rep 258,;
  • R (Burkett) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2005] C.P. Rep. 11;
  • R (Burkett) v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [2002] 1 W.L.R. 1593;
  • R (Carroll) v Westminster City Council & Anr [2010] EWHC 2019 (Admin);
  • R (Coedbach Action Team Ltd) v. Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2010] EWHC 2312 (Admin);
  • R (Compton) v Wiltshire Primary Care Trust [2009] 1 W.L.R. 1436;
  • R (Corner House Research) v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2005] 1 WLR 2600;
  • R (Davey) v Aylesbury Vale District Council [2008] 1 W.L.R. 878;
  • R (Dullingham Parish Council) v East Cambridgeshire District Council [2011] EWCA Civ 204;
  • R (Eley) v Watford Borough Council [2010] EWHC 3774 (Admin);
  • R (Evans) v The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice [2011] EWHC 1146 (Admin);
  • R (Garner) v. Elmbridge Borough Council [2011] 1 Costs L.R. 48;
  • R (on the application of Akester) v. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2010] EWHC 232 (Admin);
  • R (On the application of Hardy) v Pembrokeshire C.C. [2005] EWHC 1872 (Admin);
  • R (on the application of public and commercial services union) v Minister for the Civil Service [2011] EWHC 2556;
  • R (on the Application of Salford Estates (No.2)) Limited v Salford City Council [2011] EWHC 2097 (Admin);
  • R (on the application of Waltham Forest and Ors) v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families [2010] EWHC 3358;
  • R (Pampisford Estate Farms Ltd) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2010] EWHC 131 (Admin);
  • R (Save Britain’s Heritage) v Secretary of State For Communities And Local Government [2010] EWHC 979 (Admin);
  • R (U & Partners(East Anglia) Ltd) v The Broads Authority and the Environment Agency [2011] EWHC 1824 (Admin);
  • R (YA) v London Borough of Hillingdon [2011] EWHC 744 (Admin);
  • R v Cotswold DC, Ex p Cotswold Barrington Parish Council (1997) 75 P&CR 515;
  • R v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal for England and Wales, ex parte Caswell [1990] 2 A.C. 738;
  • R v Independent Television Commission Ex p TV NI Ltd. The Times, December 30, 1991;
  • R v SSE, ex p. Islington BC [1997] JR 121 at 126 and 128-9);
  • R. (Buglife: The Invertebrate Conservation Trust) v Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corp [2009] C.P. Rep. 8;
  • R. (Compton) v Wiltshire Primary Care Trust [2009] 1 All E.R. 978;
  • R. (Edwards) v Environment Agency [2011] 1 W.L.R. 79 (15 December 2010);
  • R. (G) v Secretary of State for Justice [2010] EWHC 3407 (Admin);
  • R. (on the application of Knowles-Fitton) v Craven DC [2011] EWHC 212 (Admin);
  • R. (on the application of Shoesmith) v OFSTED and others [2011] EWCA Civ 642;
  • R. (Pascoe) v Liverpool City Council [2007] EWHC 1024 (Admin);
  • R. (Plunkett) v Sefton MDC [2011] EWHC 368 (Admin);
  • R. (Save Britain's Heritage) v Gateshead MBC [2010] EWHC 2919 (Admin) ([2010] EWCA Civ 1500);
  • Road Sense v. Scottish Ministers [2011] CSOH 10;
  • Save Britain's Heritage v Secretary of State for Communities [2011] Env. L.R. 6 ([2011] EWCA Civ 334);
  • Tweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland [2006] UKHL 53;
  • Uniplex (UK) Ltd v NHS Business Authority Case C - 406/08.
Tags:

In this two-part CPDcast series James Maurici from Landmark Chambers discusses important recent developments in Planning and Environmental law.

Date Recorded: 5th December 2011

Start this CPDcast Activity

© CPDcast.com