BROADCASTS.com

Our Special Guest this week is Lord Ed Vaizey, politician, media columnist & commentator.

Decisions of the Week:

\n
• Decision of the Supreme Court in Fearn et al v Board of Trustees of Tate Gallery [2023] SCUK 4 dated 1st February 2023 allowing, by 3-2, an appeal against the decision of the  Court of Appeal who had dismissed an appeal from Mr Justice Mann who  declined to grant an injunction based on the common law of private  nuisance to stop members of the public from using a viewing gallery  which afforded uninterrupted views into their glass walled flats.
  \n
\n
• Decision of the Court of Appeal in R (oaf Whitley PC) v N Yorks CC & EPUK Investments Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 92 dated  3rd February dismissing an appeal against the decision of Mr Justice  Lane who had dismissed a claim for JR of a decision to grant planning  permission for the extraction & export of pulverised ash based on  alleged errors in the officer report & the failure to consider  alternatives.
  \n
\n
• Decision of High Court in Bristol Action Network Co-Ordinating Committee v SoS DLUC & Bristol City Airport dated 31st January 2023 challenging a decision of the appointed panel to allow a  s78 appeal by the Airport, against the decision of North Somerset  Council to refuse an application for the amendment of existing  conditions to increase capacity by 2 million passengers per year on  grounds related to emissions of greenhouse gases and impact on a SAC on  which horseshoe bats roost & breed. Issues raised include the  interaction/relationship with the CCA 2008 and local plan policy for the  airport.
  \n
\n
• Decision of High Court in Armstrong V SOS DLUC & Cornwall Council [2023] EWHC 176 (admin) dated  27th January 2023 quashing a decision letter dismissing an appeal by Mr Armstrong against the decision of Cornwall Council to refuse an  application under section 73 of the TCPA 1990 to vary plans for  construction of a new dwelling under an extant planning permission on  the basis the application gave rise to a fundamental variation to the  permission even though it would not give rise to any conflict with the  description of the permission.
\n

The views expressed by our guests are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of the panellists.