Cookies on Pinsent Masons website

Our website uses cookies and similar technologies to allow us to promote our services and enhance your browsing experience. If you continue to use our website you agree to our use of cookies.

To understand more about how we use cookies, or for information on how to change your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy.

Planning & Environment Expertise

Pinsent Masons are recognised as national UK market leaders with considerable expertise of appeals, judicial review and court challenges, successfully representing developers, infrastructure promoters, public authorities, government and corporate bodies in connection with planning and environmental matters in the High Court, Court of Appeal, House of Lords up to the European Court of Justice.

Experience includes:

  • Successfully advising on the leading judicial review case of Rochdale (R -v- Rochdale MBC ex parte Tew and Others) relating to Environmental Statements.
  • Successfully advising on the judicial review case R v Durham County Council and Lafarge Redland Aggregates Limited, ex parte Lowther which amongst other issues covered the definition of waste, waste permitting and change of use implications involving the use of solvent derived fuel in cement kilns, which went to the House of Lords.
  • Advising St James Group Limited in the prosecution of statutory challenge proceedings, following intervention by Rutland Investments Limited leading to a decision of the Secretary of State to refuse to grant planning permission for St James' development proposals at Feltham, London Borough of Hounslow.  The case was successful and Rutland's challenge was defeated in the High Court (case reported: St James Group v Secretary of State).
  • Successfully defeating on behalf of Veolia Environmental Services (the power station promoter) a judicial review challenge against the grant of planning permission for an energy from waste plant in West Berkshire, England. The challenge was heard at a rolled-up hearing, where we secured the strike out of the challenge on all four grounds, including delay despite the challenge being brought within the three month challenge period (case heard in 2009).