header-logo header-logo

05 April 2012
Issue: 7509 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

New planning regime fuels concerns

Lawyers warn against government shake-up of planning policy

The government’s shake-up of planning policy could lead to delays and more appeals, planning lawyers have warned.

Last week, the government unveiled the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which aims to simplify the planning process, put local not national government in charge of decisions, and introduces a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Tim Johnson, real estate partner at DAC Beachcroft, says: “There are parts of the policy that are likely to cause delays through the need for appeals or judicial interpretation, particularly, for instance, the meaning of ‘limited degree of conflict with this Framework’ when considering what weight an adopted policy is to be given.Overall, the NPPF seeks to achieve a balance as it should; however, we continue to wonder whether it has resulted in policies that, in trying to satisfy all, will end up satisfying nobody.”

Jen Hawkins, solicitor, LexisPSL Environment, says: “The approach of the NPPF seems to be more of a ‘slash-and-burn’ than a ‘consolidation’ exercise. While environmental campaigners are more happy with the refined concept of ‘sustainable development’, which now refers to the five principles of the UK sustainable development strategy, tipping the balance between economic and environmental considerations inevitably renders it less ‘pro-growth’ than its former draft form. This more detailed definition offers a new hook for environmental non-governmental organisations to latch onto, providing a policy basis on which to tackle global environmental impacts. It is easy to argue that developments such as the third runway at Heathrow are not conducive to ‘living within the planet’s environmental needs’.”

Issue: 7509 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll