Profile description
The Legal 500 2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/2015 recommends Gavin as ‘Known for his expertise in planning matters’
The mainstay of his practice is planning, highways and rights of way. Gavin heads the Magdalen Administrative & Regulatory team and has become extremely sought after for his presentation skills and his detailed cross examination of professional witnesses in planning matters. He is described as approachable and understandable by his clients; and as, “A man that can get results.”
He has successfully challenged the Secretary of State in the High Court in 2016 as well as bringing a Highway Authority to account. Whether a small scale development or major infrastructure Gavin gives 100% and can achieve the best result for his clients.
Gavin acts for numerous local authorities as well as developers and private individuals. He also accepts direct instructions from members of the public.
Notable cases:
Planning
Planning Inquiry – Section 78 Appeal, Newton Road, 2018
Gladman Developments
v
Sedgemoor District Council
This was an Appeal brought by Gladman Developments Ltd (App) is against the refusal by Sedgemoor District Council (SDC) of a planning application (37/17/00052) for outline permission (with all matters to be reserved with the exception of access) but of the four reasons for refusal that were given, three of the reasons for refusal (archaeology, flooding and highway safety) had been subsequently resolved by the submission of further evidence, conditions and certain undertakings from the App. Therefore before the Inspector the LPA relied upon the single remaining reason for refusal, namely that the proposal conflicted with the Development Plan (DP) policies. It was agreed that the Public Inquiry was primarily an issue of principle. The main issue being whether the application fails to satisfy the policies under the Core Strategy (CS), the LPA stated that it did not, and whether those policies can be held to be up-to-date, or not. Further if the policies were out of date whether the planning balance then tilted as per paragraph 14 of the NPPF in favour of grant.
Acted for LPA, Mr Easton (Counsel for Gladmans). Held: Appeal refused. (Judicial Review – pending)
Planning Hearing – Section 78 Appeal (2017)
PINs Ref: APP/G300/W/17/3178114
Hopkins Developments
V
Somerset County Council
Public Inquiry into whether appropriate to use landfill to level agricultural land to improve efficiency. Consideration of the use of waste hierarchy in the Local Plan. The effect on the local highway network, living conditions of nearby residents and biodiversity.
Acted for Somerset County Council Appellant Mr M Kendrick, Grass Roots Planning). Decision – Appeal dismissed.
Planning Inquiry – Section 78 Appeal, Shudrick Lane, 2017
Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/R3325/W/16/3152932
C G Fry & Son & Dillington Estate
V
South Somerset District Council
(Save Shudrick Valley – Rule 6 Party)
Application for 220 dwellings refused by the LPA. Main issues for the Rule 6 representations:
(a) That the development was contrary to policy;
(b) The adverse impact on landscape and visual amenity;
(c) The adverse impact on heritage assets;
(d) Highway issues including the impact on the wider network;
(e) Flooding;
(Neil Cameron Q.C. Instructed by Turleys, for the Appellants).
(Felicity Thomas Counsel for South Somerset District Council)
Acted for the Rule 6 Party. Appeal dismissed.
Professor England v (1) Secretary of State f or Communities and Local Government, (2) Melton Borough Council, (3) THORPE Say NO (2016) (Unreported). High Court. High Court challenge to Secretary of State’s called in decision to refuse a wind turbine. Acting at first instance and in the High Court for the Appellant. Defendants conceded appeal. New appeal instigated, called in by Secretary of State; turbine now permitted.
Decision – Appeal allowed.
Opponent – Treasury Solicitors.
Warwick District Council – Local Plan Inquiry
Appeal against the adoption of Warwick District Plan by third parties and 7 Parish Councils. Basis of challenge that artificial need for housing had allowed development on Green Belt land. Whether the Green Belt hierarchy within the area should be a material consideration and to what degree. Whether High Court challenge should be commenced.
Regulatory
In the High Court (Queens Bench Division) 2017
Cornwall Council
V
Andrew Hearn
Before the Cornwall Justices the Respondents had appealed against the issue of an Abatement Notice. Notice was dismissed by Justices finding that the Council had fettered its discretion. Costs of £27,000 awarded. Cornwall appealed by way of case stated to the High Court on a number of issues including whether the Magistrates were open to find that public law remedies in an Abatement appeal. Appeal by way of case stated against the decision of the Cornwall Magistrates Court to dismiss the Abatement Notice issued by the Appellant Authority as they had fettered their discretion in issuing the Notice. Issues for the High Court;
- i) Was it correct for the Justices to consider the legal arguments before evidence was called?
- ii) Did Cornwall Council fetter their discretion?
iii) If, yes, does such an unlawful act ‘taint’ the issue of the Abatement Notice?
- iv) If, yes, does a Magistrates Court have authority to prevent such unlawfulness?
- v) Were the Magistrates right to award costs, should they have assessed those costs?
Acting for the Respondent (Appellant at first Instance). Sancho Brett (In-House barrister) for the Appellants. Appeal withdrawn.
Exeter Magistrates Court (2018)
Dogs Day Out
V
East Devon District Council
Appeal against the imposition of condition upon a Local Authority Licence.
Acting for the Respondent Local Authourity (Mr Mark Shell, solicitor, for the Appellant). Appeal dismissed on all grounds.
Taunton Deane Magistrates Court (2017)
Power Poles Ltd
V
Sedgemoor District Council
Acting for Council against an appeal of an abatement notice alleging a statutory nuisance caused by smell (creosote). Whether an abatement notice could be issued to pre-empt a nuisance when a nuisance had occurred on another nearby site. Appeal by Power Poles on the basis that:
(a) the notice was not justified by the terms of the said Section:
(b) that the Council unreasonably refused to accept compliance with alternative requirements.
Acting for Sedgemoor District Council, (Christopher Hopkins, Counsel, for the Appellants). Appeal dismissed with costs.
Exeter Magistrates Court (2017)
East Devon District Council
V
Paul Sparks
Prosecution for allowing the death of a dog in the care of kennels.
Acting for Prosecution, (David Campbell, Counsel, instructed by Ashfords, for Defendant). Convicted of various offences under the Animal Welfare Act and in breach of the licence.
