Michael Rudd


Planning

Manchester

36 Young Street, Manchester, M3 3FT
DX: 718188 MCH 3
Direct Dial: 0161 832 9082

Leeds

5 Park Square, Leeds, LS1 2NE
DX: 713113 LEEDS PARK SQ
Direct Dial: 0113 242 1123

Birmingham

Embassy House, 60 Church Street,
Birmingham, B3 2DJ
DX: 13023 BIRMINGHAM
Direct Dial: 0121 200 3570

Clerked by:
William Brown
Gary Smith


Planning

Michael acts for developers, government agencies, local planning authorities, residents' groups, pressure groups and individuals. He has considerable experience in planning, enforcement, compulsory purchase and village green inquiries as well as in local plan inquires. He is frequently instructed in statutory reviews, judicial reviews and injunction applications. He prosecutes and defends in the Magistrates' and Crown Court.

Michael also regularly advises in a broad spectrum of highways matters including compulsory purchase, Definitive Map Modification Orders, ownership and boundary disputes, temporary and permanent stopping up orders, Traffic Regulation Orders and s.278 agreements.

Significant Reported Cases

Ball v SSCLG & Brentwood District Council [2013] All ER (D) 24 (Jan), [2014] EWCA Civ 372 - s.288 statutory review following on from a s.78 planning appeal relating to a high-profile green belt gypsy site development comprising 6 pitches in the constituency of Eric Pickles MP, the then Secretary of State.

AZ v SSCLG & South Gloucestershire District Council [2013] B.L.G.R. 444; [2013] J.P.L. 713 – the first successful s.288 challenge relating to Green Belt residential development where the decision hinged on the interpretation and applicability to planning decisions of Article 8 ECHR, Article 3 the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Children Act 2004 (“best interests”). This was the first reported case where such principles, well-known in immigration fields were successfully applied in a planning law context.

Cash v SSCLG & Wokingham Borough Council [2013] J.P.L. 420 – s.288 challenge relating to service of enforcement notices. Challenge successful on issue of service of the notices.

Forest of Dean DC v SSCLG and Ricky Jones [2013] EWHC 4052 (Admin) – successfully resisted local authority’s challenge to a grant of planning permission on appeal and application for a declaration that the planning permission had lapsed. The substantive challenge related primarily to the assessment of heritage assets.

O’Connor v SSCLG & Epping Forest District Council [2014] EWHC 3821 (Admin) – successful challenge to the decision of the SSCLG to dismiss an appeal contrary to the recommendation of his Inspector where the SSCLG’s conclusions in respect of flood zone and flood risk were vitiated by illegality.

Reed v SSCLG & Bracknell Forest District Council [2014] EWCA Civ 241 – successful s.289 challenge quashing dismissal of enforcement appeal. Challenge based on flawed assessment of intensification in a mixed use of land, particularly in respect of intensification resulting from an increase in the number of mobile homes on land.

Connors v SSCLG & Guildford Borough Council [2015] EWHC 334 (Admin) – the first relevant s.288 challenge following on from the judgment of the Planning Court in Moore & Coates v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 44 (Admin); [2015] P.T.S.R. D14 that the SSCLG had applied policies set out in Written Ministerial Statements in both a discriminatory manner and in breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty.

Winchester City Council v SSCLG [2015] J.P.L 1184, [2013] EWHC 101 (Admin); [2013] 7 E.G. 99 (C.S) – An important case considering the extent of the applicability of the judgement in I’m Your Man Ltd v SSE (1999) in determining a lawful use by reference to that described in a planning permission, in the context of an absence of relevant conditions.

Wenman v SSCLG & Waverley Borough Council & Guildford Borough Council [2015] EWHC 925 (Admin) – successful challenge to an Inspector’s application of the NPPF to countryside residential development in the context of housing supply policies. This led to a technical adjustment to the NPPF. The Planning Court judgment was challenged by the SSCLG, that challenge being withdrawn after receipt of the skeleton argument on behalf of Mr Wenman.

Turner v SSCLG & East Dorset District Council [2015] EWHC 2728 (Admin) – First reported case relating to the application of the sixth bullet point of paragraph 89 NPPF on the exceptions to new buildings constituting inappropriate development in the Green Belt where one form of development is sought to be exchanged for new buildings.


Profile

Michael practises in the areas of town and country planning and compulsory purchase law, environmental and agricultural law, highways, local government and public and administrative law.

He has experience across a wide range of development types including residential schemes, commercial and industrial projects (including retail, office, leisure, hotel, landfill, waste incinerators, garden centres and equestrian centres). He has also advised on matters relating to wind turbines, village greens and rights of way and has petitioned the Cross-Rail Parliamentary Select Committee. He has significant expertise in matters relating to caravan and mobile home land use.

Michael spent fourteen years in the development industry, as an engineering geologist and latterly as a planning and environmental consultant. He dealt with a wide variety of matters including the design of complex foundation solutions, contaminated land remediation solutions and groundwater suppression measures.

He advised on such developments as the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Heathrow Terminal 5, the Canary Wharf Development, a number of nuclear power stations and designed the innovative foundations for the Huddersfield Town FC stadium.

His previous career provides an obvious advantage when dealing with engineering and technical matters, particularly issues relating to contaminated land, landfill sites, flooding, heritage assets, habitats, species protection and highways.

Michael also advises in the wider field of public and administrative law, including immigration and nationality law. He regularly appears in the First Tier and Upper Tribunal, the Administrative Court and the Court of Appeal and has a number of noted cases (R. (on the application of Thangeswarajah) v SSHD [2007] EWHC 3288 (Admin); E-A (Article 8: Best Interests of Child: Nigeria) [2012] I.N.L.R. 273)

Michael enjoys cycling, running and swimming. He has completed over fifty half marathons, five marathons, four triathlons and the 2006, 2009 and 2012 Marathon des Sables, a 151 mile ultra-marathon across the Sub-Saharan desert.

Michael accepts Direct Public Access instructions.

Year of Call: 2002

Areas of Expertise
  • Administrative & Local Government
  • Environmental Law
  • Planning

Recommendations

Michael Rudd is ‘One of the leading authorities on Traveller cases.’ Legal 500 2017

Michael Rudd “…has a wide range of experience in development control matters” 
Legal 500 2015

Memberships

Planning and Environmental Bar Association (PEBA)

United Kingdom Environmental Law Association (UKELA)

Fellow of the Geological Society (FGS)

Qualifications

BSc(Hons) Physics and Geology 1988

MSc (Dunelm) Advanced Engineering Geology 1989

LLM Environmental Law and Policy 2000

Diploma in Law (City University) 2001

Bar Vocational Course 2002

 

© Copyright 2017 Kings Chambers. All rights reserved.

Scroll to Top