Specialist Advocate: Neil Cameron
This month Lawyer Monthly takes a look at the work of Neil Cameron QC, a specialist planning barrister, and current Joint Head of Landmark Chambers, the UK’s leading set of chambers practising in planning & environment law.
What are the most interesting cases you have worked on recently?
I would draw particular attention to R (Orbital Shopping Park Swindon Limited) v. Swindon BC [2016] EWHC 448 (Admin) , R (Wright) v. Forest of Dean [2016] EWHC 1349 (Admin). Orbital was one of the first challenges to a liability notice issued under the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regime. The court recognised that constitutional principles applying to taxing statutes are to be applied when considering the CIL regime.
It has long been held that planning permission cannot be bought and sold. In Wright the court had to decide whether the line had been crossed when a windfarm developer offered to make payments to a community fund to be used for a very wide range of purposes – it was decided it had been.
I have acted for a number of petitioners before the HS2 Select Committees in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The limited time allowed makes it a great challenge for an advocate; the complex must be made clear, precise, and concise.
What are the common challenges that face you in your work on compulsory purchase and related issues?
Increasing use is being made of local planning authorities’ power to authorise development notwithstanding interference with rights to light. As from 13th July 2016 section 237 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has been repealed and replaced with section 203 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. The greatest challenge is to ensure that the power is engaged only when necessary, and that local authorities strike the right balance between enthusiasm to assist and reluctance to act. I anticipate that whilst increasing use may be made of the provision, the risk of judicial review will also increase.
In dealing with planning matters relating to habitat, what are the most common concerns raised and how are they usually resolved?
Concerns can be put into two main categories, impact on protected sites and impact on protected species. The main issues to address in relation to protected sites are whether the likelihood of a significant effect on a European site can be ruled out, and if it cannot, the ambit of any habitats regulations assessment. Often, the solution is to include an appropriate assessment as part of the environmental statement. The prohibition (introduced as part of the CIL Regulations) on local planning authorities entering into more than five planning obligations to fund the same project makes it much more complex to put in place measures such as Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace to avoid/mitigate impact on heathland areas.
The approach to be taken to impact on European protected species has become much clearer following Morge v. Hampshire CC, a Supreme Court case in which I appeared. In most cases, so long as adequate mitigation measures are put in place, impact on protected species will not prevent development going ahead.
Do you foresee any significant changes in planning and environmental law following the recent Brexit decision? Are there any legislative amendments you would like to see?
European legislation on environmental assessment and habitats has had a very significant influence on planning and environmental law in this country. Brexit, when it happens, will provide an opportunity to review the environmental assessment and habitats regimes. It is likely that the current system will remain in place with some adaptations. At present, a distinction is often drawn between restrictions imposed by European legislation, for example on habitat protection, and that offered by domestic law; European requirements are often shown greater deference by decision makers, and by the courts when discretion to quash (in judicial and statutory review cases) is considered. I would like to see the system adapted to allow planning decision makers greater discretion in determining cases, and striking the balance, on the particular facts and merits of the case.
Is there anything else you would like to add?
I am fortunate to work in an area of the law where most discussion is about what is to happen in the future, rather than what has gone wrong in the past.
