Leanne is a sought after planning and housing law specialist.
Leanne’s main practice is in planning whereby she regularly advises and represents developers, local planning authorities and Rule 6 Parties at all stages of the process and in all procedures through to judicial and statutory reviews. Leanne has a busy inquiry and advisory practice with a focus on residential schemes (sole and mixed use), including particularly contentious or complex matters. She also has expertise across the full spectrum of planning enforcement from early advice to inquiry and court (including injunctive action and prosecutions). At inquiry, Leanne is particularly known for her extensive preparation and impressive work ethic, alongside skilled advocacy. At the advisory stage, Leanne gives detailed and robust advice on law and strategy with business realism. She particularly enjoys the interpretation of policy and policy making.
Leanne’s housing practice is focused on Landlord and Tenant disputes together with all matters related to HMOs. She is a strategic and tactical advocate, well versed in arguing technical points of law. Her civil litigation background as an in-house county court advocate pre-bar means he has a strong working knowledge of civil procedure and experience in court nationally.
Leanne is a qualified trainer regularly delivering seminars and webinars nationwide as well as appearing on podcasts and panels. She provides bespoke training for all manner of organisations on request. Leanne is passionate about access to the profession regularly speaking at schools, universities and to junior planning professionals, as well as mentoring formally and informally. As part of her commitment to state education, she sits as a co-opted school governor and visits schools to speak about accessing the profession.
Leanne is a sought-after planning junior both by clients in her own right and by silks in and outside of Chambers. Her meticulous preparation, information recall and both written and oral advocacy make her an asset to any team. She regularly advises and represents developers, Local Planning Authorities and Rule 6 Parties at all stages of the process and in all procedures through to judicial and statutory reviews.
Leanne has a busy inquiry, court and advisory practice with a particular focus on residential schemes (sole and mixed use), including contentious or complex matters. She is a team player, which is notable when considering the extensive positive feedback and thanks she receives from clients, professionals and even those opposing schemes due to her skilled yet friendly approach.
At inquiry and in court, Leanne is particularly known for her extensive preparation and impressive work ethic, alongside skilled advocacy. At the advisory stage, Leanne gives detailed and robust advice on law and strategy with a realistic business focus. She particularly enjoys the interpretation of policy and policy making, most recently contributing towards the Planning and Environmental Bar Association’s consultation response regarding the NPPF 2024. Please see the below sections, in particular ‘Planning Appeals’, for more detail as to inquiry advocacy.
She also has expertise across the full spectrum of planning enforcement from early advice to inquiry and court (including injunctive action and prosecutions).
Early strategic advice and assessment of merits can be invaluable and Leanne is regularly instructed to advise at all stages of the progression of a proposal from the initial pre-application consideration of a potential scheme all the way through to appeal and beyond. Advice can also be invaluable as an accompaniment to an appeal submission, particularly where the matter is to be dealt with via the written representations procedure or at a hearing where counsel is not to be instructed. Leanne’s advice was recently described by an inspector as “compelling” in the context of a s.78 appeal relating to an application for permission in principle for the residential development of land for four self and custom build dwellings whereby a dispute had arisen as to the extent to which such housing may be delivered via the PIP route [APP/J3720/W/23/3336035].
As a qualified trainer, Leanne regularly delivers remote and in-person seminars and training to a variety of organisations on a broad spectrum of planning-related matters. This includes delivering mock inquiries for planning professionals, training new and returning members of planning committees at local planning authorities, and delivering training to the Planning Inspectorate’s incoming Inspectors. She also acts as a mentor for prospective members of the planning bar.
For more detail in relation to Leanne’s experience in relation to specific categories of planning work, please see the dedicated sections below.
‘Leanne has a thorough and meticulous grasp of the case detail. She is also a clear thinker, applying law and logic to cases’ – Legal 500, 2025
s.195 appeal against the refusal of a certificate of lawfulness of use or development in respect of mixed use of land as a dwelling (falling within use class C3) with ancillary amenity land; and commercial use for the repair, maintenance and tuning of motorcycles and other small engine vehicles and equipment (falling within use class E). 4 day inquiry with issues including the number of planning units at the appeal site, whether or not there had been a material change of use at all, and if so whether or not such use had continued uninterrupted for a 10 year period. Represented the Appellant. Decision is pending.
s.78 appeal in respect of the refusal of outline planning permission for the extension to the existing business park for up to 3.9ha of employment land and up to 150 residential dwellings with associated open space and infrastructure (means of access to be determined only). This was a redetermination appeal of a previous Inspector’s decision quashed by consent on one of the several grounds brought by the Claimant. The inquiry ran for 4 days. 5YHLS was no longer in issue therefore contested matters related to the location of the development and spatial strategy, the weight to be given to material considerations including the provision of a secondary access road to Area B of the Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension and its implications for the appeal, and the alleged potential under delivery of housing over the residual plan period. Represented the Council. Decision is pending.
s.78 appeal in respect of the refusal of an outline application for a mixed-use development including up to 475 residential dwellings, station parking and a local centre. 2-week inquiry with issues including landscape, highways, heritage, prematurity and housing need. Represented the Appellant, led by Paul Cairnes K.C. Decision is pending.
s.78 appeal in respect of the refusal of planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of 83 residential apartments across two new development blocks, central amenity space including soft landscaping and planting, cycle storage, bin stores, plant store and enabling works. 2 week inquiry with issues including the effect of the proposed design on the character and appearance of the street scene, whether or not satisfactory living conditions would be achieved for occupants of the appeal scheme and neighbouring properties, and the effect on the safety of highway users with particular regard to the parking demands of the appeal proposal. Successfully represented the Appellant.
s.78 appeal in respect of the refusal of an outline planning application for demolition of existing buildings and the erection of up to 53 dwellings, public open space, landscaping and related infrastructure (all matters reserved except for access). 1 week inquiry with issues including landscape harm, trees and sustainability. Successfully represented the Appellant, led by Christopher Young K.C. It is noted that this decision was challenged by the High Court but successfully defended.
s.78 appeal in respect of the refusal of outline planning permission (with all matters reserved except access, appearance, layout and scale) for the demolition of all existing buildings and equipment other than Kemps Mill which will be retained as flexible Class E/F2 floorspace and erection of 120 no. residential dwellings and a shop (falling in use class E), together with open space, vehicular and pedestrian accesses, landscaping and related infrastructure and engineering works. 2-week inquiry with issues including compliance with employment policies, design (including character and appearance, trees and open space) and heritage. Successfully represented the Council.
Residential development comprising 45 dwellings, creation of new access, public open space and other associated ancillary works 1-week inquiry including issues related to 5YHLS, spatial strategy, social cohesion, and character and appearance. Successfully represented the Appellant, led by Peter Goatley K.C.
Outline planning permission for the extension to the existing business park for up to 3.9ha of employment land and up to 150 residential dwellings with associated open space and infrastructure (means of access to be determined only). 2-week inquiry with issues relating to 5YHLS, the location of the development and spatial strategy, and the sufficiency of infrastructure to support the scheme. Successfully represented the Council.
Outline planning permission for residential development of up to 100 no. dwellings and associated infrastructure following demolition of existing buildings on site, with access for approval and all other matters for subsequent approval. 1-week inquiry including issues relating to 5YHLS, spatial strategy, ecology and biodiversity, character and appearance, and highway safety. Successfully represented the Appellant, led by Charles Banner K.C
Outline application for a mixed-use development including up to 475 residential dwellings, station parking and a local centre. 2-week inquiry with issues including landscape, highways, heritage, prematurity and housing need. Successfully represented the Appellant, led by Paul Cairnes K.C.
Hybrid application for full planning permission in respect of 73 assisted living units within a village core building with ancillary facilities together with outline permission for up to 60 assisted living units with ancillary community space. 2-week inquiry with issues including need and policy on extra care, AONB (exceptional circumstances), landscape, design and 5YHLS. Successfully represented the Appellant, led by Christopher Young K.C. (then Q.C.).
Demolition and redevelopment for four to eleven storey development comprising 254 residential units. 2-week called-in inquiry with issues including Metropolitan Open Land (VSC), character and appearance, living conditions and affordable housing. Successfully represented the Appellant, led by Christopher Young K.C. (then Q.C.).
Outline application for a mixed-use development including up to 625 residential dwellings, up to 2.9ha of B1 employment land, and a canal corridor. 2-week called-in inquiry with issues including highways, infrastructure, AONB,
heritage and flooding. Successfully represented the Appellant, led by Christopher Young K.C. (then Q.C.).
Outline application for an extra care development of up to 84 units including associated communal facilities. 2-week called-in inquiry with issues including the need for extra care, landscape, BMV land, Heritage and accessibility. Successfully represented the Appellant, led by Christopher Young K.C. (then Q.C.).
Demolition and redevelopment for four to eight storey development comprising 151 residential units and an estate road. 2-week called-in inquiry with issues including Metropolitan Open Land (VSC), character and appearance, living conditions and 5YHLS. Successfully represented the Appellant, led by Christopher Young K.C. (then Q.C.).
s.78 appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the siting of a timber cabin to replace mobile home to provide rural workers accommodation, subject to conditions. Issues included consideration of the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and very special circumstances, including whether there was an essential need for a permanent dwelling to accommodate a rural worker at the site. Successfully represented the Appellant.
Represented the Claimant in Judicial Review proceedings where the challenge surrounded an allegation that the Defendant Council was out of time to issue a CIL Stop Notice by virtue of s.9 of the Limitation Act 1980 which imposes a statutory time limit of 6 years for actions for sums recoverable by statute. The claim had been commenced by Captain Jones as a litigant in person with the assistance of a McKenzie Friend. Following the refusal of permission on all grounds on the papers, and refusal of permission on all grounds at an oral renewal hearing, Captain Lee appealed to the Court of Appeal and Leanne was instructed on a Direct Access basis to draft a skeleton argument in support. This successfully resulted in the grant of permission to apply for judicial review on one ground. Leanne was then instructed via solicitors to represent Captain Lee Jones at the substantive hearing, a decision in respect of which is pending
Successfully represented the developer, Sigma Homes, in defending a statutory review brought by the Council pursuant to s.288 of the 1990 Act against the decision of the Secretary of State’s Inspector to grant outline planning permission for up to 53 homes. The challenge was brought on the basis of the alleged unlawfulness of the Inspector’s conclusion that there was no adverse impact on the Surrey Hills National Landscape it being suggested that he had failed to take account of a material consideration when relying on the context for the existing village as a reason why there would be no harmful effect, namely that he had found that the Development would change the existing context of the village in a harmful way in views from the footpath to the east. The Council also asserted that insufficient reasons had been provided.
Led by Christopher Young K.C., Leanne assisted in liaising with clients, drafting the summary grounds of resistance and skeleton argument, and made oral submissions in Court in respect of the reasons element of the Council’s grounds.
Successfully represented the Council in defending judicial review proceedings at a renewal hearing for permission. The application was argued at hearing on four of the five grounds: a failure to take into account the correct distance between the Site and Three Gables; irrationality in concluding that the garden area was a paddock; failure to take into account and/or give adequate reasons and/or rationally apply paragraph 8.3.15 of the SPD; and irrationality/inadequate reasoning more broadly.
Successfully appealed by way of case stated from an order of DJ Boswell making a liability order against the Appellant. Challenge surrounded the Judge’s conclusion that the Council had properly served the summons in accordance with rule 99(1)(b) of the Magistrates’ Court Rules 1981 and the correct interpretation of the wording of that provision.
Successfully represented the Claimant in judicial review proceedings challenging a controversial grant of planning permission and listed building consent for development within the Bath World Heritage Site on heritage and other grounds.
Successful defence on appeal of the Local Planning Authority’s pursuit of enforcement action; the juridical basis for Murfitt and Somak Travel; the extent of Bowring and also compliance of ground (F) appeals with Article 1 Protocol 1. Led by Scott Stemp
| Overview: Leanne has a wealth of experience as an inquiry advocate acting for developers, land promoters, housebuilders, individual appellants, local planning authorities and Rule 6 Parties at planning inquiries and hearings across the country and in relation to all types of planning appeal. That includes regularly appearing for parties in appeals relating to s.78 (appeal against the refusal of planning permission), s.174 (appeal against an enforcement notice), and s.195 (appeal against the refusal or non-determination of an application for a certificate of lawful use or development). In s.78 matters Leanne has a particular focus on schemes with a residential element dealing with the whole spectrum of contested issues that arise (expanded upon in the ‘Residential’ section below) though also has experience dealing with infrastructure including motorway service areas. She is a friendly team-player but with a strong strategic focus and thorough approach. Leanne is very experienced at cross examining expert witnesses on technical matters including those related to landscape, Green Belt, design, highways, heritage, housing land supply, flooding, viability and amenity. More recently, since the publication of the NPPF 2024, Leanne has had experience advising and acting in matters relating to the Grey Belt. Leanne has a particular interest in rural housing and the application of the NPPF and PPG in relation to rural workers dwellings. Related to s.78 appeals, Leanne is experienced in dealing with contests relating to planning obligations and CIL, in particular the interpretation and appropriateness of contributions relating to affordable housing, education and the NHS. Leanne’s s.174 and s.195 experience covers the full spectrum of issues that can arise in such appeals including: all of the available s.174 grounds; the validity of notices; arguments relating to time limits including alleged deliberate concealment; assessment of the planning unit and curtilage; residential annexes; assessment of whether something constitutes a building; caravans and mobile homes; houseboats; matters concerning Human Rights and protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 including Gypsy and Traveller status; the implementation and/or interpretation of existing permissions; Permitted Development Rights; and arguments surrounding substantial completion. Leanne also has experience acting at inquiry in relation to the stopping-up of public rights of way pursuant to s.257 of the 1990 Act. Recent appearances as an advocate at inquiry and hearing have included: Planning Hearings: Lucky Rails Alpaca Farm, Dexter Lane, Hurley [APP/R3705/W/24/3341147] s.78 appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the siting of a timber cabin to replace mobile home to provide rural workers accommodation, subject to conditions. Issues included consideration of the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and very special circumstances, including whether there was an essential need for a permanent dwelling to accommodate a rural worker at the site. Successfully represented the Appellant. Planning Inquiries: Land at Chapel Cottage, Playley Green, Gloucester [APP/P1615/X/24/3348297] s.195 appeal against the refusal of a certificate of lawfulness of use or development in respect of mixed use of land as a dwelling (falling within use class C3) with ancillary amenity land; and commercial use for the repair, maintenance and tuning of motorcycles and other small engine vehicles and equipment (falling within use class E). 4 day inquiry with issues including the number of planning units at the appeal site, whether or not there had been a material change of use at all, and if so whether or not such use had continued uninterrupted for a 10 year period. Represented the Appellant. Decision is pending. Land at Hartnoll Farm, Tiverton [APP/Y1138/W/22/3313401] – redetermination appeal s.78 appeal in respect of the refusal of outline planning permission for the extension to the existing business park for up to 3.9ha of employment land and up to 150 residential dwellings with associated open space and infrastructure (means of access to be determined only). This was a redetermination appeal of a previous Inspector’s decision quashed by consent on one of the several grounds brought by the Claimant. The inquiry ran for 4 days. 5YHLS was no longer in issue therefore contested matters related to the location of the development and spatial strategy, the weight to be given to material considerations including the provision of a secondary access road to Area B of the Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension and its implications for the appeal, and the alleged potential under delivery of housing over the residual plan period. Represented the Council. Decision is pending. Land North-West of Goring Station, Goring-by-Sea [APP/M3835/W/21/3281813] – redetermination appeal s.78 appeal in respect of the refusal of an outline application for a mixed-use development including up to 475 residential dwellings, station parking and a local centre. 2-week inquiry with issues including landscape, highways, heritage, prematurity and housing need. Represented the Appellant, led by Paul Cairnes K.C. Decision is pending. 334-340 High Street and 8-22 Harborne Park Road, Harborne, Birmingham [APP/P4605/W/23/3336011] s.78 appeal in respect of the refusal of planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of 83 residential apartments across two new development blocks, central amenity space including soft landscaping and planting, cycle storage, bin stores, plant store and enabling works. 2 week inquiry with issues including the effect of the proposed design on the character and appearance of the street scene, whether or not satisfactory living conditions would be achieved for occupants of the appeal scheme and neighbouring properties, and the effect on the safety of highway users with particular regard to the parking demands of the appeal proposal. Successfully represented the Appellant. Land at Coombebury Cottage, Dunsfold [APP/R3650/W/23/3332590] s.78 appeal in respect of the refusal of an outline planning application for demolition of existing buildings and the erection of up to 53 dwellings, public open space, landscaping and related infrastructure (all matters reserved except for access). 1 week inquiry with issues including landscape harm, trees and sustainability. Successfully represented the Appellant, led by Christopher Young K.C. It is noted that this decision was challenged by the High Court but successfully defended. Former Greencore Factory, Prestleigh Road, Evercreech [APP/Q3305/W/23/3314693] s.78 appeal in respect of the refusal of outline planning permission (with all matters reserved except access, appearance, layout and scale) for the demolition of all existing buildings and equipment other than Kemps Mill which will be retained as flexible Class E/F2 floorspace and erection of 120 no. residential dwellings and a shop (falling in use class E), together with open space, vehicular and pedestrian accesses, landscaping and related infrastructure and engineering works. 2-week inquiry with issues including compliance with employment policies, design (including character and appearance, trees and open space) and heritage. Successfully represented the Council. Land at Coventry Stadium, Coventry [APP/E3715/W/23/3322013] Demolition of existing buildings and outline planning permission (with matters of access, layout, scale and appearance included) for residential development (Use Class C3), including means of access into the site from Rugby Road, provision of open space and associated infrastructure, and provision of a sports pitch, erection of a pavilion and formation of associated car park. 2-week inquiry including issues relating to Green Belt and sports policies (such as arguments related to whether surplus to requirements, financial viability, need and whether benefits of alternative sports provision outweigh the loss). Represented the Appellant, led by Peter Goatley K.C. Land at Truman’s Farm, Gotherington [APP/G1630/W/23/3314936] Residential development comprising 45 dwellings, creation of new access, public open space and other associated ancillary works 1-week inquiry including issues related to 5YHLS, spatial strategy, social cohesion, and character and appearance. Successfully represented the Appellant, led by Peter Goatley K.C. Land at Hartnoll Farm, Tiverton [APP/Y1138/W/22/3313401] Outline planning permission for the extension to the existing business park for up to 3.9ha of employment land and up to 150 residential dwellings with associated open space and infrastructure (means of access to be determined only). 2-week inquiry with issues relating to 5YHLS, the location of the development and spatial strategy, and the sufficiency of infrastructure to support the scheme. Successfully represented the Council. Land off Shirley Road, Rushden [APP/M2840/W/22/3313850] Construction of 133 dwellings, internal roads, public open space, landscaping and other ancillary works including the creation of a new vehicular access and pedestrian access. 2-week inquiry at which the Council offered no evidence and avoided costs. Represented the Council. Land at Farleigh Farm & 54 and 56 Farleigh Road, Backwell [APP/D0121/W/21/3285624] Demolition of 54 and 56 Farleigh Road; residential development of up to 125 dwellings (Class C3); strategic landscaping and earthworks, surface water drainage and all other ancillary infrastructure and enabling works with means of site access (excluding internal roads) from the new junction off Farleigh Road for approval; all other matters (internal access, layout, appearance, scale and landscaping) reserved for subsequent approval. 1-week inquiry including issues relating to spatial strategy, character and appearance (including impact on tranquillity and recreational value of local green space), and 5YHLS. Represented the Appellant, led by Christopher Young K.C. Land at Rectory Farm, Yatton [APP/D0121/W/21/3286677] Outline planning permission for residential development of up to 100 no. dwellings and associated infrastructure following demolition of existing buildings on site, with access for approval and all other matters for subsequent approval. 1-week inquiry including issues relating to 5YHLS, spatial strategy, ecology and biodiversity, character and appearance, and highway safety. Successfully represented the Appellant, led by Charles Banner K.C. Land North-West of Goring Station, Goring-by-Sea [APP/M3835/W/21/3281813] Outline application for a mixed-use development including up to 475 residential dwellings, station parking and a local centre. 2-week inquiry with issues including landscape, highways, heritage, prematurity and housing need. Successfully represented the Appellant, led by Paul Cairnes K.C. 54-58 Stanley Gardens, Acton, London [APP/A5270/W/21/3275781] Demolition and redevelopment to provide 72 residential units and commercial (class E) uses 1,116m2. 2-week inquiry with issues including vacant building credit, viability, employment land use and housing need. Represented the Appellant, led by Charles Banner K.C. Land at Little Sparrows, Sonning Common, Oxfordshire [APP/Q3115/W/20/3265861] Hybrid application for full planning permission in respect of 73 assisted living units within a village core building with ancillary facilities together with outline permission for up to 60 assisted living units with ancillary community space. 2-week inquiry with issues including need and policy on extra care, AONB (exceptional circumstances), landscape, design and 5YHLS. Successfully represented the Appellant, led by Christopher Young K.C. (then Q.C.). Footzie Social Club, Station Approach, Lower Sydenham [APP/G5180/W/20/3257010] Demolition and redevelopment for four to eleven storey development comprising 254 residential units. 2-week called-in inquiry with issues including Metropolitan Open Land (VSC), character and appearance, living conditions and affordable housing. Successfully represented the Appellant, led by Christopher Young K.C. (then Q.C.). Land North of Viaduct, Ledbury [APP/W1850/W/20/3244410] Outline application for a mixed-use development including up to 625 residential dwellings, up to 2.9ha of B1 employment land, and a canal corridor. 2-week called-in inquiry with issues including highways, infrastructure, AONB, heritage and flooding. Successfully represented the Appellant, led by Christopher Young K.C. (then Q.C.). Site of the former Hazeldens Nursery, London Road, Albourne, West Sussex [APP/D3830/W/19/3241644] Outline application for an extra care development of up to 84 units including associated communal facilities. 2-week called-in inquiry with issues including the need for extra care, landscape, BMV land, Heritage and accessibility. Successfully represented the Appellant, led by Christopher Young K.C. (then Q.C.). Land to the rear of the former Dylon International Premises, Station Approach, Lower Sydenham, London [APP/G5180/W/18/3206569] Demolition and redevelopment for four to eight storey development comprising 151 residential units and an estate road. 2-week called-in inquiry with issues including Metropolitan Open Land (VSC), character and appearance, living conditions and 5YHLS. Successfully represented the Appellant, led by Christopher Young K.C. (then Q.C.). Advisory Work: Early strategic advice and assessment of merits can be invaluable and Leanne is regularly instructed to advise at all stages of the progression of a proposal from the initial pre-application consideration of a potential scheme all the way through to appeal and beyond. Advice can also be invaluable as an accompaniment to an appeal submission, particularly where the matter is to be dealt with via the written representations procedure or at a hearing where counsel is not to be instructed. Leanne’s advice was recently described by an inspector as “compelling” in the context of a s.78 appeal relating to an application for permission in principle for the residential development of land for four self and custom build dwellings whereby a dispute had arisen as to the extent to which such housing may be delivered via the PIP route [APP/J3720/W/23/3336035]. Leanne’s recent advisory instructions have included: * Advising in conference in relation to the refusal of planning permission for a self and custom build project in the Green Belt. Included providing strategic and practical legal advice as to the availability of exceptions pursuant to paragraph 154 of the NPPF 2024 including Grey Belt, as well as very special circumstances, resulting in the submission of an appeal. * Written advice for a developer in relation to the Council’s interpretation of its own policies regarding self and custom housebuilding provision and the likely effectiveness of such policies in the life of the current local plan; and the extent to which very special circumstances may be found to exist to support a grant of planning permission given the extent of shortfall in such housing alongside other matters. * Advising in conference as to the refusal of planning permission for a dwelling in the countryside including detailed legal advice as to the appropriate interpretation of policy with regard to the replacement of buildings, resulting in the submission of an appeal. * Written advice for a developer in relation to the extent to the interpretation of policy regarding affordable housing, and the appropriateness of a suggested planning obligation relating to the same including the extent to which it would satisfy the tests in Regulation 122 of the CIL Regs. * Written advice and advice in conference for a developer in respect of the likely prospects of success on appeal in respect of a large residential development taking account of amendments made to the design of the proposal, compliance with policy and matters relating to strategy. * Advising in conference as to the refusal of planning permission in relation to a mixed use commercial and residential scheme including over 500 dwellings. Advice included detailed opinion as to the application of policy and law, as well as appeal strategy and likely prospects. * Written advice for a developer as to the correct interpretation of local plan policy relating to the proposed redevelopment of a site whereby, due to the passage of time and changes in the site, it is no longer possible to achieve the policy’s purpose. My opinion was relied upon in challenging the Council’s interpretation of policy. * Written advice and advice in conference for a developer regarding the refusal of planning permission for a residential development involving the erection of new buildings and conversion of existing buildings resulting in nearly 200 dwellings. Advice included detailed opinion as to the application of policy and law, as well as appeal strategy and likely prospects. * Advising a local planning authority in respect of a draft officer’s report in respect of a large development where the officer’s recommendation was to refuse planning permission. * Advising a local planning authority in conference in respect of an application for residential development including extra care proposals and my view as to likely prospects of success. * Advising on, and drafting, costs applications in respect of a number of proposals at appeal. In addition to the above, and in respect of particularly contentious matters, Leanne has been instructed to attend at planning committee to make representations on behalf of developers regarding their schemes. |
Leanne is a very experienced inquiry advocate in respect of planning appeals with a residential element, the main focus of her work being residential development projects, of all sizes. Her experience includes contests on matters relating to green belt, metropolitan open land, green gaps/wedges, landscape, highways and transport, housing land supply, affordable housing including first homes, self and custom house building, extra care, design, viability and heritage. Leanne also has experience since the publication of the NPPF 2024 dealing with Grey Belt.
Leanne has a friendly yet firm approach. She is a team-player, placing all members of her inquiry team at ease whilst working extremely hard to deliver exceptionally high quality work. She is particularly known for her detailed written submissions both in her own right and when led by silks. Her cross examination is thorough and effective, and she is fast and strategic thinker.
Leanne is currently instructed in a number of large inquires yet to be heard. Recent completed inquiries (following 4–6-month maternity leaves in 2019-20 and 2022-23) have included:
* Acting for the local planning authority at both the first inquiry and redetermination in defending their refusal of outline planning permission for the extension of an existing business park and up to 150 residential dwellings.
* Acting for the Appellant led by Paul Cairnes K.C. at both the first inquiry and redetermination promoting a mixed-use development including up to 475 residential dwellings.
* Acting for the Appellant promoting 83 residential apartments across two blocks.
* Acting for the Appellant led by Christopher Young K.C. promoting up to 53 dwellings
* Acting for the local planning authority in defending their refusal of outline planning permission for flexible Class E/F2 floorspace, 120 residential dwellings and a shop.
* Acting for the Appellant led by Peter Goatley K.C. promoting 45 dwellings.
* Acting for the local planning authority in relation to their refusal of planning permission for 133 dwellings.
* Acting for the Appellant led by Lord Charles Banner K.C.
* Acting for the Appellant led by Christopher Young K.C. promoting up to 73 assisted living units (full permission) and up to 60 assisted living units (outline permission) and community space.
* Acting for the Appellant led by Christopher Young K.C. promoting 254 residential units of 4-11 storey development.
* Acting for the Appellant led by Christopher Young K.C. promoting a mixed use development including up to 625 residential dwellings, employment land and a canal corridor.
* Acting for the Appellant led by Christopher Young K.C. promoting an extra care development of up to 84 units and communal facilities.
* Acting for the Appellant led by Christopher Young K.C. promoting 151 residential units of 4-8 storey development.
Please see the ‘Planning Appeals’ section for further detail of advocacy and advisory work, as well as the ‘Judicial and Statutory Review’ sections for court work relating to residential schemes.
Leanne regularly acts for local planning authorities, landowners and occupiers in all manner of planning enforcement-related matters. She is frequently instructed to provide early tactical advice to assist parties who either anticipate possible enforcement action or wish to take it, providing strategic advice as to options both short and long term. This includes matters related to enforcement notices, breach of condition notices, stop notices and other forms of action together with pursuing certificates of lawfulness in relation to proposed and retrospective operational development and use.
Leanne is an experienced inquiry advocate regularly representing parties at enforcement appeals pursuant to s.174 of the 1990 Act across all available grounds and often in complex situations involving multiple properties, complicated planning histories, and concerning both operational development and material changes of use.
Leanne also has a wealthof experience advising and representing parties in respect of obtaining lawful development certificates in respect of either proposed or existing operational development or changes of use pursuant to sections 191 and 192 of the 1990 Act. Her work includes assisting in the drafting of submissions and advice at application stage and at the point of a s.195 appeal.
Outside of her advisory and inquiry practice, Leanne also acts for both local planning authorities and landowners/occupier in the context of criminal proceedings in the Magistrates Court throughout the process from initial hearings to trial, and beyond to sentencing.
Please see the ‘Planning Appeals’ section above and the ‘Injunctions and Committal Proceedings’ sections below for more detail as to work related to this area.
Recent experience has included:
* Advising in conference as to the implementation and applicability of two competing planning permissions, substantial completion, potential breach of condition and the likely prospects of success of an application for a certificate of lawfulness relating to both retrospective operational development and use.
* Representing the Appellant at a s.195 inquiry in relation to the Council’s refusal to issue a certificate of lawfulness in respect of the mixed use of land as a) a dwelling with ancillary amenity land and b) commercial use for the repair, maintenance and tuning of motorcycles and other small engine vehicles and equipment. This included strategic advice in conference as well as advocacy at inquiry.
* Advising in writing as to substantial completion involving a detailed assessment of relevant case law and consideration of the opposing opinion of the Council’s in-house legal team.
* Representing the Appellant at a s.195 inquiry in relation to the Council’s refusal to issue a certificate of lawfulness in respect of operational development relating to hardcore and the parking of motorised vehicles including arguments surrounding the extent of the planning unit, intensification and what amounts to a material change.
* Representing a Defendant in relation to criminal proceedings in the Magistrates Court in respect of the breach of enforcement notices resulting in a successful submission of no case to answer at half-time relating to one alleged offence on the basis of legal submissions, an acquittal in relation to another alleged offence, and in due course a good outcome at sentencing in respect of the remaining two offences.
* Advising in conference and in writing as to the likely prospects of success of an application for a certificate of lawfulness in relation to a houseboat, including detailed consideration of case law and appeal decisions in respect of what constitutes a building and a chattel, and a thorough analysis of opposing counsel’s advice with submissions in response.
* Advising in writing as to an alleged breach of condition and the correct interpretation of said condition together with the likely prospects of obtaining a certificate of lawfulness. My opinion asserted that the correct interpretation of the condition was such that part of the alleged breach was not in fact a breach of condition and the remainder, due to the passage of time, could be made subject to an application for a certificate.
* Representing a local authority at inquiry in respect of a combined s.174 and s.78 appeal in respect of a Gypsy and Traveller site involving detailed cross examination of an expert witness and analysis of policy.
* Numerous advices in conference and writing in respect of the prospects of appeal from refusals of s.195 applications and/or enforcement notices as well as the prospects of high court challenge
Leanne is experienced in litigation related to injunctive action. Her background working as an advocate for a large law firm prior to the bar, and ongoing housing-law practice, mean that she has a solid training in civil litigation, the procedure rules and court-based advocacy.
Leanne acts for local planning authorities and occupiers/landowners both in the context of the process of securing/defending interim and final injunctions as well as committal proceedings in the context of alleged breach. Her experience extends beyond injunctions related to planning and into other related areas, as well as acting in committal proceedings in respect of breaches of such injunctions and related to other contempt of court.
Recent work includes:
* Successfully obtaining an emergency without notice interim injunction pursuant to section 187B of the 1990 Act and section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972, providing urgent drafting and oral advocacy at a remote High Court hearing to secure an emergency planning injunction against numerous Defendants relating to unauthorised encampment.
* Representing a local planning authority at interlocutory hearings in respect of an ongoing injunctive matters providing strategic and tactical advice for the successful progression of the case as well as negotiating a favourable outcome with the other side;
* Assisting a local planning authority in drafting and issuing two sets of committal proceedings in respect of breaches of an interim planning injunction at two distinct times during the progression of injunctive proceedings;
* Providing advice and guidance in conference in respect of intended injunction proceedings including assisting in amendments to the draft claim form, details of claim, application form, draft injunction orders (interim and final) and witness evidence resulting in the local planning authority being able to issue the application in short order;
* Acting for a Defendant in multi-handed committal proceedings in respect of alleged contempt of court related to dishonesty in court documents. Provided strategic advice and advanced submissions and mitigation on their behalf in the High Court resulting in a) the Court sentencing on the basis of the particular facts the Defendant admitted rather than the more serious contested facts asserted by the Claimant, and b) a much-reduced penalty compared to that anticipated
With her wealth of inquiry experience, Leanne is frequently instructed to advise professionals and lay clients in respect of merits and strategy relating to both judicial and statutory reviews, as well as providing expert representation at contested hearing. Her dual expertise as both a planning and housing barrister, and her previous broad general civil litigation background, gives her a strong understanding of the litigation process which is particularly helpful when considering court-based action. She understands that some clients benefit from hearing advice in conference rather than (or as well as) in writing which Leanne is happy to accommodate remotely, in chambers or at the offices of those instructing her.
Of course, not all matters make their way to a court room and early advice is invaluable be that in respect of the likely prospects of success of a challenge or the extent to which an already issued claim should be contested. Leanne’s advice is sensible, accessible and thorough. She has a keen focus not only on the law but the business practicalities of pursuing or defending a claim and where her advice is not to proceed with a challenge, Leanne is happy to be instructed to advise on strategy and alternative courses of action and which may be available to a client in the longer term.
Recent matters to contested hearing have included:
R (on the application of Captain Lee Jones) v Shropshire Borough Council AC-2024-LON-001634 (unreported – decision pending)
Represented the Claimant in Judicial Review proceedings where the challenge surrounded an allegation that the Defendant Council was out of time to issue a CIL Stop Notice by virtue of s.9 of the Limitation Act 1980 which imposes a statutory time limit of 6 years for actions for sums recoverable by statute. The claim had been commenced by Captain Jones as a litigant in person with the assistance of a McKenzie Friend. Following the refusal of permission on all grounds on the papers, and refusal of permission on all grounds at an oral renewal hearing, Captain Lee appealed to the Court of Appeal and Leanne was instructed on a Direct Access basis to draft a skeleton argument in support. This successfully resulted in the grant of permission to apply for judicial review on one ground. Leanne was then instructed via solicitors to represent Captain Lee Jones at the substantive hearing, a decision in respect of which is pending.
Waverley Borough Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2024] EWHC 3302 (Admin)
Successfully represented the developer, Sigma Homes, in defending a statutory review brought by the Council pursuant to s.288 of the 1990 Act against the decision of the Secretary of State’s Inspector to grant outline planning permission for up to 53 homes. The challenge was brought on the basis of the alleged unlawfulness of the Inspector’s conclusion that there was no adverse impact on the Surrey Hills National Landscape it being suggested that he had failed to take account of a material consideration when relying on the context for the existing village as a reason why there would be no harmful effect, namely that he had found that the Development would change the existing context of the village in a harmful way in views from the footpath to the east. The Council also asserted that insufficient reasons had been provided.
Led by Christopher Young K.C., Leanne assisted in liaising with clients, drafting the summary grounds of resistance and skeleton argument, and made oral submissions in Court in respect of the reasons element of the Council’s grounds
R. (on the application of Andrew Hill) v Wychavon District Council AC/2024/BHM/000027 (unreported – July 2024)
Successfully represented the Council in defending judicial review proceedings at a renewal hearing for permission. The application was argued at hearing on four of the five grounds: a failure to take into account the correct distance between the Site and Three Gables; irrationality in concluding that the garden area was a paddock; failure to take into account and/or give adequate reasons and/or rationally apply paragraph 8.3.15 of the SPD; and irrationality/inadequate reasoning more broadly.
Captain Lee Jones v Shropshire Borough Council CO/3623/2021 (unreported)
Successfully appealed by way of case stated from an order of DJ Boswell making a liability order against the Appellant. Challenge surrounded the Judge’s conclusion that the Council had properly served the summons in accordance with rule 99(1)(b) of the Magistrates’ Court Rules 1981 and the correct interpretation of the wording of that provision.
R. (on the application of Hollings) v Bath and North East Somerset Council [2018] 5 WLUK 375
Successfully represented the Claimant in judicial review proceedings challenging a controversial grant of planning permission and listed building consent for development within the Bath World Heritage Site on heritage and other grounds.
Court of Appeal:
Kestrel Hydro v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Spelthorne Borough Council [2016] EWCA Civ 784
Successful defence on appeal of the Local Planning Authority’s pursuit of enforcement action; the juridical basis for Murfitt and Somak Travel; the extent of Bowring and also compliance of ground (F) appeals with Article 1 Protocol 1. Led by Scott Stemp.
In addition to the above, Leanne initially acted in Worthing Borough Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities CO/1221/2022, led by Paul Cairnes K.C., assisting in drafting the summary grounds of resistance to the Council’s claim before her maternity leave in summer 2022.
Leanne is also involved in pending actions not presently listed
Leanne has a wealth of experience at inquiry and in court arguing matters of policy interpretation and application, as well as a strong working knowledge of the NPPF. Indeed, she was involved in the drafting of the Planning and Environmental Bar Association’s response to the recent Government consultation in relation to the NPPF 2024 and regularly delivers seminars and talks on local and national policy content and interpretation. She is therefore well-placed to advise as to the drafting of local and neighbourhood plans and other development management documents, as well as in relation to allocations. Leanne is able to make robust submissions in challenging or defending plans and allocations within plans, including scrutiny of the evidence base.
Leanne’s most recent instructions have included:
* Advising a local planning authority post inquiry decision as the impact of the decision on policy interpretation, and the implications for their emerging local plan. Advice in particular relating to required evidence base and the development of appropriate policy.
* Assisting (led) in advising in relation to multiple sites of different scales and complexities under one common ownership with a view to seeking allocation in the emerging local plans of two local planning authorities respectively.
* Reviewing and advising on written submissions in the context of emerging local and neighbourhood plans.
Leanne has acted, both led and in her own right, at inquiries relating to motorway service area development and public rights of way. She has also been instructed to secure stopping-up orders in the Magistrates Court (s.116 and s.117 of the 1990 Act) as well as to act for the Highways Authority at public inquiry in the context of s.78 appeals.
Recent work has included:
Gloucestershire
County Council Public Footpath CHL 6, Parish of Leckhampton [ROW/3249302]
2-day inquiry in respect of the proposed stopping up of public right of way.
Land between Junctions 16 and 17 of the M25, near Chalfont St Peter [APP/X0415/W/21/3272171]
Outline application for the erection of a motorway service area including a facilities building, fuel filling station and up to 100-bedroom hotel. 2-week inquiry with issues including metropolitan Green Belt (VSC), landscape, BMV land, veteran trees and ancient woodland, biodiversity, and aviation safety. Represented the Appellant, led by Satnam Choongh.
WATCH ON YOUTUBE Presented by Leanne Buckley-Thomson, covering: writing your evidence preparing to give evidence delivering your evidence From the No5 Barristers Chambers Annual Local Planning…
With the ever-up-to-date-team of Leanne Buckley-Thomson, Howard Leithead and Oliver Lawence they have packaged up a short and quick fire review of what has made…
Leanne has experience acting and advising on both judicial review and statutory appeals to the High Court and above. Early advice can be invaluable and Leanne’s advice is comprehensive and accessible.
Leanne regularly delivers seminars and training across a broad range of planning topics. As a qualified trainer, she is able to produce more bespoke packages for local authorities, businesses and other organisations.
In addition to her instructions, as past Chair of the South Coast Young Planners Network Leanne remains an active member of the RTPI. She has been invited to speak at seminars and to judge awards.
Encouraging access to the profession is extremely important to Leanne and she frequently speaks at schools as well as to students. She has previously filmed a segment for the RTPI’s project with Fun Kidz Radio “Agent Plan-IT” to encourage school aged children to engage with planning. Leanne is also an active mentor.
WATCH ON YOUTUBE Presented by Leanne Buckley-Thomson, covering: writing your evidence preparing to give evidence delivering your evidence From the No5 Barristers Chambers Annual Local Planning…
With the ever-up-to-date-team of Leanne Buckley-Thomson, Howard Leithead and Oliver Lawence they have packaged up a short and quick fire review of what has made…
