Kimberley Ziya

Planning

Kim’s practice spans the full breadth of planning law: regularly appearing at public inquiries on behalf of both developers, local planning authorities and rule 6 parties; and representing both claimants and defendants in judicial review and s.288 appeal proceedings. Kim’s mixed planning and property practice enables her to advise on intersecting issues between the two fields, such as land options, restrictive covenants, rights to light, and compulsory purchase matters.

Kim is ranked in the 2024 Planning Resource Magazine’s top-rated planning juniors under 35. She is a contributor to The Encyclopedia of Planning Law and Practice.

Notable planning work includes:

• Advised a Rule 6(6) party seeking to resist the development of over 1,000 homes at the former Mortlake Brewery, London
• Acted for the developer at an appeal hearing for 33 residential units outside of the settlement boundary in Bentley, Farnham
• Acted for Maidstone District Council at a two-week public inquiry concerning the development of a major solar farm on agricultural land
• Advised the London Borough of Southwark in relation to a claim against it for judicial review of its decision to grant a section 73 application
• Acted for the developer at an appeal hearing for the erection of a 4-storey apartment block as enabling development for critical conservation works to a Grade II* listed farmhouse on the same site in Brent, London
• Acted for Churchill Homes at a successful appeal hearing for 36 retirement apartments in Seaford
• Led by Sasha White KC:
  • Acted for Fenland District Council in successfully opposing a claim for judicial review of its decision to grant planning permission for the development of a large retail store in March, Cambridgeshire
  • Acted for the successful developer at an 11-day inquiry, resulting in planning permission for 200 new homes on greenfield sites in the setting of the Chichester Harbour AONB
  • Won planning permission at appeal for 1,400 homes in Bury St Edmonds
  • Won planning permission at appeal for 50 homes in Bedhampton
  • Won two appeals for retirement accommodation for Churchill Homes  
  • Acted for the successful developer at a public inquiry concerning the proposed redevelopment of 70 “Airey” houses that were designated defective and in need of urgent structural intervention. The appeal raised issues regarding the application of the public sector equality duty in planning decisions and the security of tenure of the existing residents of the houses being a mix of secure and assured shorthold tenants
  • Won planning permission at appeal for a major redevelopment in Hackney Wick
• Led by Zack Simons KC, acted for the successful developer in obtaining planning permission, following a public inquiry, for 144 homes in the Green Belt and within the setting of the Surrey Hills National Landscape on the edge of Dorking in Mole Valley
• Led by Richard Moules KC, advising Littlehampton Harbour Board on a claim for judicial review of the decision taken by Arun District Council not to pay sums required to comply with its duties as a statutory harbour authority
• Led by Paul Brown KC, acted for Uttlesford District Council in successfully resisting an appeal against its refusal of planning permission for a major mixed-use development in Takeley despite the council’s inability to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply and designation under s.62A of the TCPA 1990
• Led by John Litton KC, acted for the successful developer at a public inquiry concerning the development of four buildings of purpose-built student accommodation and commercial floors in Bristol. The development was opposed by the EA on the basis that it failed to satisfy the “exception test” for flood risk set out in national planning policy.

Notable cross-over work includes:

• R (Day) v Shropshire Council [2023] UKSC 8; [2023] 2 W.L.R. 599: led by Alex Goodman KC, Kim acted for the successful Appellant in a seminal case concerning the sale by a local authority to a developer of open space protected by a statutory trust. She was brought in as junior counsel in preparation for the Supreme Court hearing to assist in particular on property law matters arising from what started as a planning judicial review.
• Allerdale Borough Council & Cumberland Council v Derwent Forest Development Consortium Ltd: led by Myriam Stacey KC, Kim advised the claimant local authorities in a claim for declaratory relief and possession relating to 1,073 acres of land at Broughton Moor. The claim raises issues regarding the construction of contractual break clauses and relief from forfeiture. It also raises planning issues as the lease in question was granted to the defendant developer for the purpose of a major redevelopment of the land which is a former military munitions depot.  

Property

Kim is a highly sought-after junior with a wide-ranging property practice. She is regularly instructed in matters ranging from trials in the county court, complex service charge disputes in the First Tier and Upper Tribunals; to possession hearings, strikeout and summary judgment applications. Led work has included two appearances in the Supreme Court and multiple cases before the Court of Appeal. Her mixed property and planning practice positions her ideally to advise on overlapping issues between the two areas including 1954 Act ground (f) and (g) disputes, restrictive covenants and rights to light.

Kim’s early work on the Law Commission’s leasehold enfranchisement project sparked a strong interest in this area of law, which she further developed during her pupillage with Tom Jefferies. Kim has since advised on and acted in a number of collective enfranchisement and lease extension claims for both landlords and tenants.

Notable property work includes:

• FirstPort Property Services Ltd v Settlers Court RTM Co Ltd [2022] UKSC 1; [2022] 1 W.L.R. 519: led by Simon Allison KC, Kim acted for the successful Appellant in the first “leapfrog” appeal from the Upper Tribunal (Property Chamber) to the Supreme Court. The case concerned the operation of leaseholders’ right to manage multiple buildings with shared common parts under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
• Contentious 1954 Act ground (g) dispute: Kim acted for the tenants of a wine bar in their application for the renewal of their business tenancy which was opposed by their landlords on the basis that they intended to occupy the property for the purposes of running their own wine bar (“ground (g)”). The tenants disputed that: (1) this was the landlords’ genuine, firm and settled intention; (2) that the landlords’ plans were feasible; and (3) that the landlords’ intention would be the same if the tenants vacated voluntarily (applying the test in S Frances Ltd v Cavendish Hotel (London) Ltd [2018] UKSC 62; [2019] A.C. 249). The matter settled on the first day of trial.
• Marshall v Northumberland and Durham Property Trust Ltd [2022] UKUT 92 (LC): Kim acted for the landlord in an appeal against the grant of dispensation from consultation requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The case raised interesting issues about the test for dispensation where urgent repair works are required and where a single leaseholder is not consulted.
• AEW UK REIT Plc v Sportsdirect.com Retail Ltd [2021] EWHC 1013: led by Katharine Holland KC, instructed for Sports Direct in proceedings to determine whether rent was payable under the terms of its Lease for periods in which the leased premises were forced to close in compliance with government restrictions imposed in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
• 1 West India Quay (Residential) Ltd v East Tower Apartments Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1119: led by Justin Bates KC, instructed by the landlord in a case concerning the application of the service charge provisions in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to a large mixed-use development with a complex utility metering system. The issues determined by the Court of Appeal were: the proper interpretation of s.20B of the Act; and, the construction of various commonly found costs clauses in residential long leases (including whether a landlord can waive its right to forfeit for breach of a covenant before such a breach has been determined by the Tribunal).
• Jarvis v Evans [2021] 1 W.L.R. 24: led by Justin Bates KC, acted for the landlord (supported by the National Residential Landlords’ Association) in an appeal concerning the licencing regime for landlords in Wales under the Housing (Wales) Act 2014.
• Piechnik v Oxford City Council [2020] EWHC 960 (QB): led by Justin Bates KC, acted for Oxford City Council in a High Court appeal concerning the rights of access of local authority landlords to carry out fire safety works in flats where the tenant has exercised their right to buy.
• Avon Grounds Rents Ltd v Cowley [2019] EWCA Civ 1827: led by Justin Bates KC, acted for the landlord in an appeal regarding the application of the reasonableness test at s.19(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to on account service charges.
• York House (Chelsea) Limited v Thompson [2019] EWHC 2203: led by Tom Jefferies, acted for the long leaseholders in a four-day High Court trial regarding tenants’ rights of first refusal under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987

Notable cross-over work includes:

• R (Day) v Shropshire Council [2023] UKSC 8; [2023] 2 W.L.R. 599: led by Alex Goodman KC, Kim acted for the successful Appellant in a seminal case concerning the sale by a local authority to a developer of open space protected by a statutory trust. She was brought in as junior counsel in preparation for the Supreme Court hearing to assist in particular on property law matters arising from what started as a planning judicial review.
• Allerdale Borough Council & Cumberland Council v Derwent Forest Development Consortium Ltd: led by Myriam Stacey KC, Kim advised the claimant local authorities in a claim for declaratory relief and possession relating to 1,073 acres of land at Broughton Moor. The claim raises issues regarding the construction of contractual break clauses and relief from forfeiture. It also raises planning issues as the lease in question was granted to the defendant developer for the purpose of a major redevelopment of the land which is a former military munitions depot. 

Local Government

With a strong track record of advising and representing local authorities, we offer expert legal support across a diverse range of areas and issues. Recognised for our clear, pragmatic legal guidance and strong advocacy, we are well-placed to support local government bodies in meeting complex and evolving challenges.

Cross-practice

Landmark's barristers often work at the intersection of our core practice areas; bringing a wide range of skills, knowledge and experience to bear on a particular dispute or issue facing a client.

Our focus is always on achieving the best possible outcome for our client. By viewing the client's objectives in a holistic way - and not purely through the lens of one rigidly-defined legal area - we deliver the best possible advice and representation in complex matters that engage multiple specialist areas of law. 

Whether it's providing support as an individual cross-practice barrister or a cross-disciplinary team of Landmark counsel, we are able to draw on an outstanding array of complementary skillsets and knowledge bases. This often achieves a better result than instructing multiple barristers from different specialist sets. This also improves the quality of client care through increased levels of communication, quicker response times, and a coordinated approach to clerking and fees, made possible by our team-based cross-practice approach.

Please contact our practice management team for more information.

Public Interest Litigation

Telecommunications