John Hunter

---

 

Year of call: 2002

John practises in public law, planning law, environmental law, regulatory & disciplinary law, discrimination and human rights. He appears regularly in judicial review and related proceedings before the High Court. From 2004-5 John was judicial assistant to Lord Rodger and Lord Nicholls in the House of Lords where he observed and assisted in relation to a number of significant cases including, most notably, A v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 2 A.C. 68 (indefinite detention of foreign terrorist suspects without trial or charge).

John features in Planning Magazine's national survey of the best planning barristers under 35.

Since 2008 he has been appointed to the Treasury Panel.

Reported Cases

R. (on the application of Elvington Park Ltd & Anor) v. York Crown Court [2011] EWHC 2213 (Admin). Judicial review and appeal by way of case stated against a decision of the Crown Court to uphold abatement notices served in respect of a noise nuisance from motorsports activities at an airfield outside York. The main issues were whether the court had unfairly excluded one of the appellants’ company officers from the proceedings, whether the notices properly identified the nuisance alleged, and whether the court had erred in its approach to assessing nuisance or to considering whether best practicable means had been demonstrated.

R. (on the application of Hinds) v Blackpool BC [2011] EWHC 591 (Admin). Judicial review of a grant of planning permission for a large housing development on the basis that the planning authority had failed to take into account the Coalition government’s intended revocation of Regional Spatial Strategies.

R. (on the application of Knowles-Fitton) v Craven DC [2011] EWHC 212 (Admin). Judicial review by a planning authority of its own grant of planning permission on the ground that the officer who granted permission under delegated powers had erroneously failed to include a specific condition.

Calderdale MBC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2010] EWCA Civ 1268; [2011] 1 P. & C.R. 15; [2011] J.P.L. 412. Appeal against a decision of the High Court to allow an application under s.288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the Secretary of State’s decision to grant planning permission for housing development on a greenfield site. The main issue was whether the Inspector had adopted an unlawful approach as a result of misdirecting himself as to the statutory presumption in favour of the Development Plan.

R. (on the application of Yorkcourt Properties Ltd) v Wakefield MBC [2010] EWHC 2394 (Admin). Judicial review of a grant of planning permission for a new roundabout junction on a business park. The main issue were whether the terms of the permission were insufficiently certain and whether some of the conditions of the permission were unlawful because they allowed the authority to approve matters separately that should have been the subject of further public consultation.

R. (on the application of Smith) v Governor of Lindholme Prison [2010] EWHC 1356 (Admin). Judicial review by prisoners of decisions refusing to re-categorise them from Category C to D.

R. (on the application of Adebayo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 1260 (Admin). Judicial review of a decision not to treat his further submissions under Article 8/family life as amounting to ‘fresh representations’ under r.353 of the Immigration Rules.  

Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2009] EWCA Civ 333; [2009] J.P.L. 1326. Appeal against the dismissal of an application under s.288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash a decision of the Secretary of State to grant planning permission for the retention and reuse of part of a former colliery site. The main issues were: (1) whether the Inspector had failed to consider adequately evidence that the reuse and redevelopment of the site would not be economically viable and (2) whether permission could only be lawfully granted on the basis of a real, as opposed to theoretical, possibility that an end-user would be found for the site within the lifetime of the permission.

Nextdom (Bootle) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2007] EWHC 3040 (Admin); [2008] J.P.L. 954. Application to quash the Secretary of State’s decision to confirm a compulsory purchase order within a Housing Market Renewal Area. The main issues were: (1) whether the Inspector had failed to consider adequately the landowner’s evidence as to its intention and ability to develop the land consistently with the purposes of the order or to give adequate reasons for his conclusions on the same; (2) whether the Inspector had been entitled to conclude, consistently with the Secretary of State’s own policy and Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR, that he was ‘sure’ there was a compelling case in the public interest for confirming the order merely on the basis of ‘doubt’ as to whether the public benefits of confirming the order would be achieved if the order was not confirmed; (3) whether the acquiring authority had unlawfully fettered its discretion on the implementation of the order by virtue of its contractual obligations with its preferred developer.

R. (on the application of Lewis) v Redcar and Cleveland BC [2007] EWHC 3166 (Admin); [2008] J.P.L. 1156; [2008] A.C.D. 38. Judicial review of a grant of planning permission for a mixed-use development. The main issues were: (1) whether the decision was tainted by apparent bias or predetermination and (2) whether the planning authority had failed to carry out an appropriate assessment of the development or had failed to determine that it would not adversely affect an area of international importance for biodiversity contrary to reg. 48 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994 and the Habitats and Birds Directives.

Younger Homes (Northern) Ltd v First Secretary of State [2003] EWHC 3058 (Admin); [2004] J.P.L. 950. Application under s.288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash a decision of the Secretary of State to grant planning permission for retail and leisure development. The main issue was whether the Secretary of State had erred in not making a screening direction under the EIA Regulations in circumstances where (it was argued) the planning authority had not itself previously adopted a lawful screening opinion.

Recommendations/ Memberships/Publications

PEBA

ALBA

NALA

Amnesty International

Career & Education

BA Hons Philosophy & Spanish Literature (First Class),

MSt European Literature (Distinction),

Gibbs Prize for Performance in Philosophy Final Honour School,

Oxford University, The Queen's College.

CPE/PgDip Law (Commendation), Northumbria University.

BVC (Very Competent), Inns of Court School of Law,

Sir Thomas More Scholarship, Lincoln's Inn.