In R ( THAMES WATER UTILITIES LTD ) v SWINDON BOROUGH COUNCIL ( 2026 ) EWHC 1348 ( Admin ) the claimant statutory undertaker applied for Judicial Review of the local highway authority’s decision to INCREASE THE FEES charged to the claimant for permits to carry out certain street works. The ISSUE was whether Regulation 32 of the TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PERMIT SCHEME ( England ) REGULATIONS 2007 permitted fees to be applied only to PRESCRIBED COSTS incurred in the CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR, or whether a permit authority could recover HISTORIC DEFICITS through increased fees in later years. The Court, considering the DoT’s statutory Guidance, holds that local highway authorities have NO POWER to increase the fees in order to cover past deficits. The statutory scheme requires the authority to endeavour to BALANCE COSTS AND FEES WITHIN A PARTICULAR YEAR, subject only to the possibility of carrying surpluses forward. Past deficits are relevant only insofar as they inform DECISIONS WHETHER ADHUSTMENTS HAD TO BE MADE TO THE STRUCTURE OF THE SCHEME, pursuant to regulation 29, to ensure a better balance in the future.
LPA FUNCTIONS
June 10th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Planning and EnvironmentalThe Town & Country Planning ( Discharge of LPA Functions ) ( England ) Regulations 2026 will come into force on 31 October 2026. They set out a NATIONAL SCHEME OF DELEGATION for planning decisions which must be followed by all relevant LPAs. There are types of planning applications which MUST ALWAYS BE DELEGATED TO PLANNING OFFICERS and other types which MAY be referred to a Planning Committee or Sub-Committee for determination. They also set out a MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEMBERS who may sit on a Planning Committee.
WHETHER PUBLIC LAW CONSIDERATION MANDATORY
June 9th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and LitigationR ( GOULD ) v DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL (2026) EWCA Civ 687 concerns decisions by the Council to close non-statutory drop-in centres. The Court of Appeal holds that that the Council had been no legal obligation to refer in the Officers Report to obligations in the Care Act 2014 which were not alleged to have been breached. An authority does not have in every case to have regard to a wide range of statutory duties which were (or arguably were) relevant in a broad sense, although not identified in the governing legislation.
POWERS
June 5th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in GeneralNote the creation of (1) the Greater Cambridge Urban Development Corporation and (2) the Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority.
ECHR ARTICLE 3
June 5th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Human Rights and Public Sector Equality DutyIn R (AOX) v SoS for Health & Social Care (2026) EWHC 1217 (Admin) a claim that the SoS had breached the ARTICLE 3 INVESTIGATIVE DUTY was dismissed by Eyre J. When identifying the proper defendant it is not sufficient to identify a general emanation of the State with responsibility in the relevant field and assert that it owed the Article 3 investigative duty in the abstract. Further, the prospect that lessons would be learned from an investigation could not operate as a freestanding trigger for an obligation to investigate under Article3. The Judge addressed (1) the applicable principles relating to Article 3 ( paras 35-64 ), ( 2 ) status as an emanation of the State ( paras 65-74 ), ( 3 ) what constitutes INHUMAN & DEGRADING TREATMENT ( paras 75-96 ), ( 4 ) the proper defendant ( paras 97-101 ), ( 5 ) the adequacy of systems for investigation and oversight ( paras 102-105 ), (6 ) the operational duty and the procedural obligation ( paras 106-108 ), and ( 7 ) the timing of the claim ( paras 109/110 ).
POWERS FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND OTHERS
June 4th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in GeneralOn 3 June 2026, the House of Commons LIBRARY has published a BRIEFING on responding to ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR in England and Wales.
ECHR ARTICLE 5
June 2nd, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Human Rights and Public Sector Equality DutyOn deprivation of liberty and mental capacity, the Supreme Court has, in (2026) UKSC 16, overruled its majority decision in CHESHIRE WEST ( 2014) AC 896.
INJURIOUS AFFECTION
June 2nd, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Land, Goods and ServicesROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE INSURANCE LTD v HARROW LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (2026) UKUT 197 (LC) holds that the Lands Chamber of the Upper Tribunal has JURISDICTION to award costs in a TREE PRESERVATION ORDER compensation case under the TPO Regulations 2012. The damage to the claimant’s property caused by the Council’s refusal to permit the felling of 2 trees under a TPO meant that the proceedings constituted “ proceedings for injurious affection of land “ within the Lands Chamber Rules. The refusal of consent to fell the trees resulted in the damage to the property. The damage was the cracking and subsidence which resulted from the refusal to allow the felling of the trees.
PREMIUM FOR CONSENT
June 2nd, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Land, Goods and ServicesPALMER v PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL (2026) EWHC 1262 (Ch) holds that Section 144 of Law of Property Act 1925 ( Landlord’s ability to charge a premium for CONSENT TO ALIENATION) and Section 19 of Landlord and tenant Act 1927 (dealing with all aspects of alienation) are NOT inescapably inconsistent. BOTH apply to a covenant requiring a premium for consent to assignment.