Skip to main content

T: 020 7353 8415

  • "A genuine star, who is a real team player and a pleasure to work with."

    Chambers and Partners, James Pereira QC

James Pereira QC

James Pereira QC

Year of call: 1996 (QC 2014)

Practice areas: Planning, Environment, Compulsory Purchase and Compensation, Major Infrastructure Projects, Rating, Public Law, European Law

Public Access

James Pereira QC - Planning

Practice Profile

James is ranked as one of the top silks in this field by the Legal 500, Chambers and Partners and Planning magazine, who ranked him in the top 10 silks at the Planning Bar in 2017.  The Directories describe him as "calm, authoritative and a dogged advocate", "a genuine star", "a pleasure to work with", "a very astute operator who never disappoints on the day" and "a very persuasive man to put in front of a High Court Judge."

His practice as an inquiry advocate is underpinned by frequent appearances in the High Court and his opinion is regularly sought on a range of advisory matters. His expertise covers all areas of planning, including promoting and resisting compulsory purchase orders. More details of experience within particular fields can be provided upon request.

James is in demand as a speaker on planning matters and has addressed both the Oxford Planning Conference and the PEBA Annual Conference.

Examples of planning appeals and call-in inquiries include

  • Fetcham Park, Surrey - successful enforcement appeal for wedding functions in a Grade 2* listed building.
  • Broadland Housing Association, Norfolk - successfully acted in appearl for housing and substantial care home facilities.
  • West Parade, Worthing - substantial seafront residential tower.
  • Homebase, Cwmbran - acting for the Prudential, successfully resisted proposals for out of centre retail development.
  • Eltham Common, Greenwich - successfully securing consent for a MUGA on Eltham Common.
  • Butts Lane, Thurrock; Newton Leys, Aylesbury: call-in appeals for urban housing extensions.
  • Stansted G2 project - one of the team of Counsel promoting the planning applications for the second runway, additional facilities, and off-setting measures on behalf of BAA Ltd and Stansted Airport Limited.
  • Arundel Great Court, Westminster - instructed by Westminster City Council to resist proposals for major redevelopment in this historically sensitive location near Somerset House and affecting views of St Paul's Cathedral.
  • Rivenhall Airfield, Essex - instructed by the waste planning authority for a call-in inquiry into proposals for large waste recycling and industrial development.
  • Turweston Aerodrome, Buckinghamshire: Counsel for Aylesbury Vale DC in two long running enforcement and section 78 inquiries concerning the expansion of Turweston Aerodrome.
  • Brogborough Landfill, Bedfordshire: successfully defending the waste planning authority's refusal of planning permission for an extension to one of the largest landfill sites in Europe.
  • Promoting minerals, waste and general development plans.
  • Numerous smaller-scale inquiries covering a wide range of planning subject matter.

Court cases include

 

  • R (Scarsbrick) v Secretary of State [2017] EWCA Civ 787 - successful defence to grant of development consent order.
  • R (Piffs Elm Ltd) v Tewkesbury BC [2016] EWHC 3248 (Admin) - on apparent bias and remedial discretion.
  • Holiday Extras v Crawley BC [2016] EWHC 3247 (Admin) - challenge to adoption of development plan on Strategic Environmental Assessment grounds.
  • R (Scarsbrick) v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 715 (Admin)  - interpretation of national waste policy.
  • South Oxfordshire DC v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 1173 (Admin) - successful defence to planning permission involving housing supply issues.
  • Ashdown Forest Economic Development Corporation v Wealden DC [2015] Env LR D1 - successful defence to adoption of development plan involving Habitats and Strategic Environmental Assessment issues.
  • R (ota Save Britain’s Heritage) v Gateshead MBC [2014] EWHC 896 (Admin) - successful defence of challenge to grant of planning permission.
  • Forest of Dean Friends of the Earth v Forest of Dean Council [2014] Env LR 3 – successful defence of adopted development plan involving Habitats and SEA issues.
  • R (Lyon) v Cambridgeshire City Council [2014] Env LR 11 - successful defence of planning permission involving EIA issues
  • R (Warley) v Wealden DC [2012] Env LR 4 - successful challenge to screening opinion.  
  • R (Griffin) v Tower Hamlets LBC [2011] EWHC 53 - successful defence of flight increases at London City Airport
  • R (Brown) v Carlisle City Council [2010] EWCA Civ 523 - salami slicing and EIA development.
  • Williams v Herefordshire Council [2010] Divisional Court - on the scope of the 'non-owner' offence of not complying with a planning enforcement notice.
  • R (Ardagh) v Chester City Council [2010] EWCA Civ 172 - on the validity of retrospective planning permissions for EIA development.
  • R (Wye Valley Action Group) v Herefordshire Council (2010) Env LR 18 - on the requirement for EIA of polytunnel development
  • Barbone v Secretary of State [2009] EWHC 463 (Admin), a successful defence of Stansted G1 planning permission; correct approach to national policy statements.
  • R (Ardagh Glass Ltd) v Chester City Council [2009] EWHC 745 (Admin), a successful application for mandatory order compelling local planning authority to take enforcement action.
  • Hobson v Secretary of State [2009] EWHC 981 (Admin), on enlargement of dwellings in the Green Belt.
  • R (Smith) v Cotswold DC [2007] EWCA, on reasons for the grant of planning permission.
  • R (Condron) v National Assembly for Wales [2007] BLGR 87 (CA), on the test for apparent bias in the grant of planning permission.
  • South Beds v Price [2006] JPL 1805 (CA); Times 22 May 2006, on the relevance of circular 1/2006 on Gypsies and Planning to existing injunctions against Gypsies.
  • R (Noble) v Thanet District Council (2006) Env LR 8, a challenge to a planning permission based upon the duty to take remedial action under EU law.
  • R (Wall) v Brighton and Hove [2005] JPL 807, the first case on the duty to give reasons for a grant of planning permission under the GPDO.

Privacy Notice