PLA v Mendoza [2017] UKUT 146 (TCC), 24 November 2016.
The boat in question in this case was called the Wight Queen and was moored without engine or wheelhouse on the North bank of the Thames not far from Kew Bridge. It was owned and lived in by Mr Mendoza. On 16 November 2009 the Port of London Authority (PLA) applied to the Land Registry for first registration of its title to part of the bed and foreshore of the River Thames between Kew Bridge and Brentford Ait.
We reported on our website the case of Wenman v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 925 (Admin), 21 April 2015:-
R (Jayes) -v- Flintshire CC and Hamilton (interested party) [2017] EWHC 874 (Admin) 13
Mr Hamilton obtained planning permission for a Gypsy site for a temporary period of not more than 5 years. A neighbouring objector challenged this on several grounds. Before C.M.G. Ockelton (sitting as a deputy high court judge), Mr Jayes was successful on his first ground and the Planning Inspector’s decision was quashed.
Dartford Borough Council -v- SSCLG [2017] EWCA Civ 141, 14 March 2017
The sole issue on this appeal was the meaning of “previously developed land” (often called “Brownfield land”) as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The definition in NPPF reads as follows:-
Jones v Canal & River Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 135
The claim by Canal & River Trust (CRT) in this action is for a declaration and injunction that it is entitled to remove the Appellant’s boat, “The Mrs T”, from its waterways ( covering over 2,000 miles) under s.8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 and s.13 of the British Waterways Act 1971.
Doncaster MBC – v – Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [SSCLG] & AB [2016] EWHC 2876 (Admin), 6 October 2016.
AB was granted planning permission for a Gypsy site in the Green Belt by a Planning Inspector. She had previously had two temporary permissions for the same site. The local authority challenged the decision.
Jones – v – London Borough of Southwark [2016] EWHC 457 (Ch) 4 March 2016
It was revealed in this case that London Borough of Southwark and a number of other local authorities regarded themselves as agents in the collection of water rates for Thames Water but that they were in fact re-sellers and thus subject to the Water Resale Order 2006 which imposes maximum charges on re-sellers and allows only for modest administration charges.
McDonald – v – McDonald [2016] UKSC 28
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the right to respect for private and family life and home.
R (Plant) -v- Somerset County Council and Taunton Deane Borough Council
This was a case where Community Law Partnership represented Mr Plant. The challenge to the decision to take eviction action against his unauthorised encampment was unsuccessful.
Lee -v- Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Runnymede Borough Council [2016] EWCA Civ 558, 17 June 2016
This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal concerning a refusal of planning permission for a Gypsy and Traveller site. Marc Willers of Garden Court Chambers represented the Appellant.