Richard Moules KC

Planning

Richard’s planning practice encompasses all aspects of planning both at inquiries and hearings and in the Higher Courts. He also advises clients on all aspects of planning law, including policy formulation, development control and enforcement. Richard regularly advised on s.96A and s.73 applications for major development schemes. His practice also encompasses compulsory purchase and compensation, harbours, highways, rights of way, commons registration and village greens (both inquiries and in the Higher Courts).

Examinations in public: Richard has appeared at several Core Strategy examination hearings for developers and interest groups. He has also advised a number of local planning authorities on issues related to preparation of Development Plans (including the Harrogate Local Plan, Waverley Local Plan Part 2, Maidstone Local Plan and the Bedford Borough Local Plan). He has also advised a number of local planning authorities on issues related to preparation of Development Plans.

High Court planning work

His most recent high-profile planning cases include:

• • R (on the application of Finch) v Surrey CC (June 2023) - leading Nicholas Grant for the Secretary of State in a significant Environmental Impact Assessment case. The issue is whether an Environmental Impact Assessment for a commercial oil extraction project must consider the downstream greenhouse gas emissions arising from the oil’s eventual combustion by third party consumers.
  • C G Fry and Son Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities [2023] EWHC 1622 (Admin) (concerning the lawfulness of carrying out appropriate assessment at the condition discharge stage post-Brexit)
  • R. (on the application of Addison) v Southwark LBC [2022] EWHC 3211 (Admin) (successfully defending the grant of planning permission for Dulwich Hamlet Football Club’s new stadium)
  • R. (on the application of CPRE (Somerset)) v South Somerset DC [2022] EWHC 2817 (Admin) (acting for the claimant and quashing a grant of planning permission due to presumed and apparent bias of committee members)
  • R. (on the application of Village Concerns) v Wealden DC [2022] EWHC 2039 (Admin) (successfully defending the grant of planning permission for a large housing scheme in a case about the interpretation of policy and allegedly misleading advice from officers)
  • R. (on the application of Park Lane Homes (South East) Ltd) v Rother DC [2022] EWHC 485 (Admin) (successfully defending the decision to accept a neighbourhood plan examiner’s report).

Compulsory Purchase and Compensation

Richard advises on compulsory purchase and compensation issues. He promotes CPOs through public inquiries for development schemes, including for town centre redevelopments.

His most major CPOs include successfully promoting:

• Darlington Station Gateway CPO (£80m scheme)
• Peckham Rye Station (£30m scheme)
• Southall Gasworks Site (London Mayor’s first CPO)
• Whitgift Croydon (for a Westfield & Hammerson joint venture shopping centre)
• Lewisham Gateway (transport and town centre regeneration).

Richard is currently promoting the Cornwall Council (Langarth Garden Village, Threemilestone) CPO 2022 which will deliver a Northern Access Road enabling development of 3550 dwellings near Truro.

Richard acts for objectors to CPOs, including the Barking Vicarage Fields CPO in 2022.

Richard has also defended a number of High Court challenges to CPO orders including Swish Estates Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] EWHC 3331 (Admin) and R (on the application of Barker) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2018] EWHC 2099 (Admin)

In the field of CPO compensation, Richard has acted for Nottingham City Council in a multi-million pound CPO compensation claim, he has also acted in relation to the compensation claims arising out of the Southall Gasworks CPO and the Whitgift Croydon CPO, plus he has acted for the Highways Agency in CPO compensation claim in respect of Bedford Bypass and the for Olympic Delivery Authority and Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport in relation to compensation claims arising out of the London Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Richard’s recent court cases concerning CPO compensation include:

Secretary of State for Transport v Curzon Park Ltd [2023] UKSC 30 - led by David Elvin KC in a case about compulsory purchase compensation arising from the HS2 scheme. The issue concerned the relevance of other parties’ applications for Certificates of Alternative Development (“CAAD”) when deciding a CAAD application for the subject site. (Court of Appeal [2021] P.T.S.R. 1560 Upper Tribunal [2020] UKUT 37 (LC)).

Lake v Attorney General of Anguilla [2022] UKPC 33 – led by Richard Clayton KC in a case about the correct valuation method for valuing land acquired by compulsion to extend an airport runway.

Highways, Footpaths and Rights of Way

Richard has acted in a number of rights of way inquiries and regularly advises on highways issues including highways orders under the Highways Act 1980. He acted for the successful developer obtaining a stopping up order to facilitate the Intu Milton Keynes shopping centre extension. Richard is also acting for the City of London and Southwark LBC in arbitrations against TfL concerning the vesting of GLA roads, and the associated litigation (Southwark LBC v Transport for London [2017] EWCA Civ 1220 – permission granted to appeal to the Supreme Court).

In Wheeler v Norwich Magistrates, on an appeal by way of case stated, Richard successfully for the Ramblers’ Association and established that the Magistrates’ Court lacked jurisdiction to award costs to third parties (usually the landowner) in complaints under the Highways Act 1980.

Infrastructure

Planning Act 2008 and infrastructure

Richard regularly acts for Government defending challenges to Planning Act 2008 decisions (eg R. (on the application of Mars Jones) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2017] EWHC 1111 (Admin) and R. (on the application of Mynydd y Gwynt Ltd) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2018] P.T.S.R. 1274 (Court of Appeal) & [2017] Env. L.R. 14 (High Court). He has also acted for the Marine Management Organisation in the DCOs: Thames Tideway Tunnel; Hinckley Point C; Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility.

Richard has considerable airport-related experience. He acted for the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland at inquiry concerning the expansion of flights from Belfast City Airport. He advised London City Airport on its planning application for expansion, advised Bristol City Airport on expansion under permitted development rights and advised Foster+Partners in relation to the environmental implications of the proposed Isle of Grain airport (‘Boris Island’).

In terms of other infrastructure, Richard promoted a CPO to regenerate Peckham Rye Station and its environs, a CPO to regenerate Darlington Station and he advised on the making of harbour revision orders for the Port of Dover.

Marine Planning and Harbour Orders

Marine Regulation (including Harbours and marine licensing)

Richard’s marine work covers a number of marine regulatory matters including statutory harbour powers, harbour dues, harbour orders, marine licensing and marine planning.

Richard advises on all aspects of marine regulatory law. His clients include ports, harbours, local authorities, regulators and interest groups. He has particular expertise in the following areas:

• Interpretation of and compliance with statutory harbour powers
• Harbours dues and use of revenue
• Marine licensing
• Marine planning
• EIA
• Habitats and species protection
• Water regulation
• Environmental permitting.

Cases include:

• Richard acted successfully for the interested party defending the first judicial review brought of the Marine Management Organisation: see R. (Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd) v Marine Management Organisation [2012] EWHC 3058 (QB).
• Advising on the St Ives (G7 Sumit) Harbour Revision Order
• Acting for Littlehampton Harbour at a s.31 Harbours Act 1964 inquiry
• Advising a statutory harbour authority in relation to its statutory harbour powers connected with harbour dues and other charges.
• Advising a statutory harbour authority in relation to a number of claims against it connected with the levying of harbour dues.
• Advising in respect of a challenge against a statutory harbour authority based on a failure to comply with statutory harbour duties and misappropriation of harbour funds.
• Acting for the Marine Management Organisation defending its decision to grant a licence for marine dredging near Devonport Naval Base.
• Advising the Marine Management Organisation in relation to its licensing guidance and in relation to data sharing.
• Thames Tunnel: Acting for the Marine Management Organisation at the DCO hearings
• Advising the Marine Management Organisation in relation to the drawing up of the first Marine Plans
• Hinckley Point C: Acting for the Marine Management Organisation at the DCO hearings
• Acting for the Environment Agency at two week inquiry in test cases concerning its approach to water permitting.

Planning Appeals, Inquiries and Hearings

Planning inquiries

Richard’s planning inquiry experience is wide ranging and he acts for developers, local planning authorities and Rule 6 parties.

Richard has experience of promoting large retail schemes (including having successfully acted in called-in inquiries for the Rushton Lakes development, a designer outlet centre (Scotch Corner) and a shopping centre extension in England’s first business neighbourhood plan area (Intu Milton Keynes)).

Environment

Richard’s environmental law practice is wide-ranging, covering matters such as habitats and species protection, contaminated land, air quality, waste, access to environmental information, statutory and common law nuisance and all aspects of environment impact assessment, strategic environmental assessment and environmental permitting. He has also been involved in a number of cases concerning marine environmental issues.


EIA

Richard has appeared in a number of important cases on EIA including:

• R (on the application of Finch) v Surrey CC (June 2023) - leading Nicholas Grant for the Secretary of State in the Supreme Court in a significant Environmental Impact Assessment case. The issue is whether an Environmental Impact Assessment for a commercial oil extraction project must consider the downstream greenhouse gas emissions arising from the oil’s eventual combustion by third party consumers.
• Pearce v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2022] Env. L.R. 4
• Bent v Cambridgeshire CC [2017] EWHC 1366 (Admin) (assessment of quarry noise)
• R. (on the application of Waters) v Breckland DC [2016] EWHC 951 (Admin) (enforcement and EIA)
• R. (on the application of Community Against Dean Super Quarry) v Cornwall Council [2017] EWHC 74 (Admin) (enforcement and EIA)
• R (on the application of Oldfield) v SSCLG [2014] EWCA Civ 1446 (cumulative assessment).

He regularly advises developers, planning authorities and interest groups on the adequacy of environmental statements.

SEA

Richard acted for the Government reviewing the SEAs produced prior to the revocation of Regional Strategies, he also advises local authorities on SEA for plan-making.

Environmental permitting and licensing

Richard regularly advises the Environment Agency in relation to environmental permitting issues. He acted for the Environment Agency at two-week inquiry in test cases concerning its approach to water permitting, and acted for the Environment Agency in a two-week inquiry successfully resisting an appeal to remove environmental mitigation conditions from the water discharge permit for Hinkley Point C nuclear reactor.

Recent cases

Richard’s high profile environmental cases include:

• Wild Fish and Marine Conservation Society v Defra -led by Sir James Eadie KC defending the Government’s Storm Overflow Discharge Reduction Plan
• Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023] 2 W.L.R. 339 - led by Tom Weekes KC acting for residents successfully arguing that overlooking from the Tate Modern’s viewing platform is an actionable nuisance.
• Manchester Ship Canal Co Ltd v United Utilities Water Ltd (March 2023) - led by Jonathan Karas KC and James Maurici KC in a case about whether private watercourse owners can sue sewerage undertakers in trespass or nuisance in respect of sewage discharges, or whether the statute provides exclusive remedies for the regulators (Court of Appeal: [2023] Ch. 1 & High Court [2021] 1 W.L.R. 5871).
• Wild Justice v Natural Resources Wales [2021] Env. L.R. 24 - led by Sir James Eadie KC in a judicial review claim about the grant of general licences to kill wild birds.
• Safety-Kleen UK Ltd v Environment Agency [2021] Env. L.R. 19 - acting for the Environment Agency in a case about the definition of ‘waste’
• Gladman Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2020] P.T.S.R. 128 (Court of Appeal) & [2017] EWHC 2768 (Admin) (High Court) - acting for the Secretary of State in a leading case about how air quality impacts should be considered by planning decision-makers.
• Thomson v Marine Management Organisation [2020] Env. L.R. 13 -acting for the Port of Dover defending the grant of a marine licence for dredging
• R. (on the application of Protreat Ltd) v Environment Agency [2018] P.T.S.R. 2090 - led by James Maurici KC for the Environment Agency in a case about end of waste.
• R. (on the application of Mynnyd y Gwynt Ltd) v Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy [2018] P.T.S.R. 1274 (Court of Appeal) & [2017] Env. L.R. 14 (High Court) - acting for the Secretary of State in leading case about habitats protection and successfully defending the refusal of development consent for a wind farm due to the impact on red kite.
• R. (on the application of McMorn) v Natural England [2016] P.T.S.R. 750 - led by James Maurici KC in a judicial review of Natural England’s refusal to grant a licence to kill buzzards.
• Manchester Ship Canal Co Ltd v United Utilities Water Plc [2014] 1 W.L.R. 2576 - led by Jonathan Karas KC in case establishing that water companies have an implied right to discharge into private watercourses from pre-privatisation infrastructure.

Air Quality

Richard has particular expertise in air quality issues (affecting both human and ecological receptors). He acted in High Court cases such as Gladman Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] EWHC 2768 (Admin) and Wealden DC v SSCLG [2017] EWHC 351 (Admin).

Environmental Assessment (Environmental Outcomes)

Environmental Impact Assessment

Richard has appeared in a number of important cases on EIA including:

• Bent v Cambridgeshire CC [2017] EWHC 1366 (Admin) (assessment of quarry noise)
• R. (on the application of Waters) v Breckland DC [2016] EWHC 951 (Admin) (enforcement and EIA)
• R. (on the application of Community Against Dean Super Quarry) v Cornwall Council [2017] EWHC 74 (Admin) (enforcement and EIA).
• R (on the application of Oldfield) v SSCLG [2014] EWCA Civ 1446 (cumulative assessment).

He regularly advises developers, planning authorities and interest groups on the adequacy of environmental statements.

Strategic Environmental Assessment

Richard acted for the Government reviewing the SEAs produced prior to the revocation of Regional Strategies, he also advises local authorities on SEA for plan-making.

Environmental Enforcement

Enforcement including civil sanctions

Richard regularly advises the Environment Agency in relating to environmental permitting decisions and enforcement, and acts for the Agency at inquiry defending their enforcement decisions. He advised the Environment Agency on its policy for accepting enforcement undertakings.

Habitats and Species

Habitats and species protection law

Notable cases include:

• Wealden DC v SSCLG [2017] EWHC 351 (Admin) (habitats and air quality).
• R. (on the application of Mynydd y Gwynt Ltd) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2017] Env. L.R. 14 (appropriate assessment & red kite).
• R (McMorn) v Natural England [2016] Env. L.R. 14 (licensing shooting buzzards).

Richard has acted in numerous planning appeals concerning habitats and species protection issues. Richard advises on all legal aspects of habitats and species protection. He has worked on a number of high profile appeals and High Court cases in relation to shooting estates and shooting rights (including Walshaw Moor); RSPB v SSCLG [2014] EWHC 1523 (Admin)(appropriate assessment and airport development affecting birds).

Richard advised Natural England and a consortium of local planning authorities in relation to the Thames Basin Special Protection Area. He also regularly advises the Marine Management Organisation on habitats issues in relation to its licensing and enforcement decisions.

Nuisance

Nuisance and other property/environmental issues

Richard often acts in property cases involving environmental law aspects. He is currently acting as junior to Tom Weekes KC in relation to a nuisance claim by residents who claim the Tate Modern extension is a nuisance/infringes their right to privacy. Richard successfully represented United Utilities Water Plc in the Supreme Court in a case concerning the right of utility companies to discharge into private watercourse (led by Jonathan Karas KC) (Manchester Ship Canal Co Ltd v United Utilities Water Plc [2014] 1 W.L.R. 2576)

Waste

Richard regularly advises on complex waste issues. He is currently acting for the Environment Agency in a challenge to its end of waste decision-making in relation to waste oils.

Water

Water and flooding

In addition to advising developers and planning authorities on flooding issues in the planning context, Richard acted for the City of London defending its decision to proceed with the £17m Ponds Project on Hampstead Heath: R. (on the application of Heath & Hampstead Society) v City of London [2015] P.T.S.R. 987. Richard successfully represented United Utilities Water Plc in the Supreme Court in a case concerning the right of utility companies to discharge into private watercourse (led by Jonathan Karas KC) (Manchester Ship Canal Co Ltd v United Utilities Water Plc [2014] 1 W.L.R. 2576). Richard also regularly advises on environmental permitting affecting water and acted for the Environment Agency at two week inquiry in test cases concerning its approach to water permitting.

Public and Administrative

Richard has a wide-ranging public law practice beyond planning and environmental cases. His public law practice includes social security, education, regulatory, local government (including local government finance), EU law and all aspects of human rights law.

Richard has lectured and published widely on the subject of public law.

Property

Richard’s property work relates closely to his planning and environmental practice and includes proceedings in respect of injunctions for nuisance and trespass arising out of the development of land; disputes in respect of s106 agreements and restrictive covenants; and disputes arising out of development agreements which are conditional upon planning consent being obtained.

Richard’s recent cases include:

• Chitolie v St Lucia National Housing Corporation (July 2023) - led by Myriam Stacey KC in a case concerning land registration and the protection of overriding interests of occupiers in St Lucia.
• Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023] 2 W.L.R. 339 - led by Tom Weekes KC acting for residents successfully arguing that overlooking from the Tate Modern’s viewing platform is an actionable nuisance.
• Southwark LBC v Transport for London [2020] A.C. 914 (Supreme Court) [2018] P.T.S.R. 333 (Court of Appeal) [2015] EWHC 3448 (Ch) (High Court) - led by David Elvin KC in a leading case about the meaning of highway in the context of the transfer of land from highway authorities to TfL.

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.

ADR

Energy

EU Law post-Brexit

Highways and Rights of Access

Local Government

Public Interest Litigation

Public Works Projects

Telecommunications