Michael has a wide experience of planning issues, including:
•    Judicial review & statutory challenges;
•    Challenges to officers’ reports;
•    Lawful development certificates;
•    Enforcement notices;
•    The interpretation of planning policy;
•    Listed buildings & conservation areas;
•    Interpretation & enforceability of planning conditions;

Michael has substantial experience of planning at all levels. 

Inquiries and appeals
Michael Rhimes has extensive inquiry experience, as well as other forms of appeal (hearings and written representation). He represents both local planning authorities and developers. He recently represented Southwark successfully in a three day Inquiry relating to the unlawful conversion of a pub, which attracted local media attention (see here and here)

He recently appeared – successfully – in a major six-day inquiry in Buckinghamshire relating to the refusal of permission for 93 dwellings. The case raised complex habitats regulations points, as well as planning and landscape issues (see here)

He has a strategic approach to Inquiries which clients appreciate. His advice has, for example, often resulted in successful applications for costs against the local planning authority and/or appellant. This includes:

• A commercial developer obtaining a certificate of lawfulness and costs against the local planning authority, see here;
• An appellant gaining a full application for costs against a local planning authority (APP/A2280/C/21/3274505).
• He also advised a London authority to settle an appeal based on fresh evidence, and successfully secured a full award of costs against the appellant (APP/B5480/C/22/3293132)

Post-permission
Michael is able to offer practical advice on all aspects after the grant of permission. He has acted for developers, local authorities and objectors seeking to challenge planning permissions. He is able to provide advice to potential clients – often to urgent deadlines – on all aspects of challenging planning permission.

Michael has a keen interest in all aspects of public law. He assisted, unled, defending a complex judicial review claim for education for asylum seekers under the age of 18 against a local authority, which raised complex points of international and European human rights law (the case settled after Summary Grounds of Resistance).

He acted (led by Ben Collins KC and Nicholas Chapman) for the successful Parole Board in the judicial review of the Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab) direction regarding the release of prisoners, in R(oao Bailey) v SSJ [2023] EWHC 821 (Admin). The case attracted substantial media attention (See, e.g. in The Guardian).

Michael is happy to assist in all areas of environmental law, and has regularly advised developers and local planning authorities alike on various aspects of the Environmental Impact Assessment and Habitats Assessments processes. 

He acted as junior to Richard Honey KC, and successfully represented the Secretary of State for Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities defending a claim brought against alleged EIA failures. The case considered in detail the principles regarding ‘salami-slicing’ and cumulative effects (see, here)

Michael has experience in acting for a range of parties in licensing matters, at all levels. He has appeared for both license holders, licensing authorities and acted as legal advisor to Licensing Sub-Committees.

He has acted for a number of parties (both licensees and licensing authorities) who have sought to challenge or defend decisions in the Magistrates’ Courts. He has appeared in the Crown Court, including recently successfully defending the revocation of a taxi licence because of a single isolated incident.

Michael is fully familiar with the interim licensing reviews, and is happy to accept instructions at short notice to represent licensees or local authorities in those proceedings.

Michael assisted Isabella Tafur in a multi-million pound compensation case before the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), which settled during trial. At issue was whether a proposed development on the site would have been granted permission. The principal policy was a complex, ‘tiered’ policy, and there were significant heritage issues involving multiple Listed Buildings.

Michael also drafted pleadings for a landowner in a claim arising out of an order to purchase four homes. The claim raised complex points, including on situations where there is a “negative equity” and interests on mortgage repayments. The case settled prior to hearing in the Upper Tribunal on terms favourable to the client.

Michael represented Network Rail (lead by Rebecca Clutten) in its application for an Order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 to build a new station in Cambridge (see here). The case – heard over six weeks – raised complex points regarding noise, vibration, and electro-magnetic interference. There were also heritage issues and legal issues regarding rights of way over the rails. Michael dealt with the handling of two expert witnesses, and assisted in drafting the Opening and Closing Submissions. 

Michael assisted Rebecca Clutten on an important point of principle concerning the powers of an applicant for a development consent order to enter private land to carry out surveying and related matters under the Planning Act 2008 and the Housing and Planning Act 2016. The case settled as it became academic. 

He also – with Andrew Tait KC and Mark Westmoreland Smith – advised SSLUHC on the Special Development Orders for Wethersfield Airfield and Scampton Airfield for use as housing for asylum seekers (See here and here) Both attracted substantial media attention.

Michael assisted in drafting an opinion for a local authority on a number of issues arising under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 including issues of vires, procedure, and the powers of local authorities over public and private land; he has also advised a Welsh authority on whether certain acts were executive or non-executive in character.

Michael maintains an interest in the legal regulation of parking and traffic offences. He represented the London Borough of Ealing in a significant case before the London Tribunal on the enforcement of bus lanes by means of cameras (See, here). He has also provided advice to other London authorities on penalty charge notices imposed on hired vehicles, and on legal restrictions on spending monies raised from parking spaces.

Michael has a keen interest in the law relating to village greens. He has recently successfully appeared in the following leading cases in the High Court:

• R(oao Bellway Homes) v Kent CC  [2022] EWHC 2593 (Admin).  (led by Richard Honey KC) on the meaning of ‘trigger events’ under the Commons Act 2006 which raised difficult questions as to the interaction between the TVG and planning regimes; 
• R(oao Strack) v SSEFRA [2023] EWHC 655 (Admin) (led by Douglas Edwards KC) on the approach to deregistration of greens under s. 16 of the 2006 Act. He was also instructed on appeal in [2024] EWCA Civ [2024] EWCA Civ 420.

He also assisted other members of Chambers on whether ‘cul-de-sac’ ways could be dedicated under section 31 of the Highways Act 1980, and on potential recourses against an individual who submits a vexatious Definitive Map Modification Order. 

Michael has experience advising both local planning authorities and other parties at all stages of enforcement proceedings, including in criminal proceedings alleging the breach of enforcement powers.

He has acted (led by Douglas Edwards KC) on the leading authority relating to the removal of operational development in an enforcement notice that targets a change of use. This is a topic that often arises in relation to enforcement, and is of significant interest to practitioners (see here)

He has provided a range of advices – both to local authorities and to developers subject to enforcement notices – to those in need of assistance in this complex area. He has also represented people charged with breaching enforcement notices, and is comfortable representing defendants and prosecuting authorities in the Magistrates’ Courts.

Michael is currently instructed in two appeals under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to Inspector’s decisions on enforcement appeals.

Michael had substantial experience of rating and the Council Tax. He has represented a local authority in the VTE on a point of statutory interpretation of council tax law (on the empty homes premium) brought by a religious organisation (see VT00009237 & VT00011803, here). He is currently instructed on a complex challenge relating to the “Class G” exemption.

He is also familiar with CIL, having recently advised a local authority on whether CIL could be claimed after the relevant development was completed. 

Michael has an all-round expertise in these areas, and is able to advise on the full range of options open to clients in the Magistrates’ Court, VTE (or thereafter the High Court).

He is happy to assist in all areas relating to these matters. 

Michael assisted in the drafting of a defence to a pre-action protocol letter for advertisement consent for a well-known high street brand on Oxford Circus. The case involved a complex interaction between the regimes of express and deemed consent under the Control of Advertisement Regulations 2007. 

Michael has represented a number of authorities – and the Government – seeking strike outs or summary judgments. He represented a London authority against a vexatious litigant, and successfully obtained an extended civil restraining order against him before HHJ Jan Luba KC (who was then a Senior Circuit Judge, serving as the Designated Civil Judge for London).

• Queen Mary, Law (First Class Honours) (2011 – 2014)
• University of Oxford, Bachelor of Civil Law (2014 – 2015)
• BPP University Law School, Bar Professional Training Course (Outstanding) (2018 – 2019)

Bar Awards & Scholarships

• Sir Joseph Priestly Award (Inner Temple) (2019) (awarded to undertake a clerkship at the Constitutional Court of South Africa)
• Princess Royal Scholarship (Inner Temple) (2018) (awarded to study the Bar Professional Training Course)
• Pro Bono Award – awarded by BPP to study the BPTC (2018)
• Excellence Award – awarded by BPP to study the BPTC (2018)
• Gilbert Murray Trust Award; Global Justice Internship Fund; Southern African Judicial Assistance Project (awarded for various projects in 2015) 

University Awards & Scholarships 

• Leverhulme trust Prize (excellence in final year at University) (2014)
• Oxford University Prize (award for top marks Equity & Trust Law) (2013)
• Property Law Prize (award for top marks in Property Law) (2012)

Is it really lawful to conduct licensing sub-committee hearings remotely? A sceptical view, Journal of Licensing, (November 2022)

Forfeiting proceeds: civil forfeiture, the right to property and the Constitution. South African Law Journal (May 2021) 

Greening the Law: the Reception of Environmental Law and Its Enforcement in International Law and European Union Law 2018 Columbia Journal of European Law 

Charting the Charter: A UK Guide to the Application of the EU Charter, 2017 (3) Judicial Review 295. 

Standing their Ground: Why are EU Standing Rules for Direct Actions (still) so Restrictive? 2016 European Journal of Legal Studies (online)
Cited with approval in Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet in C-244/16 P Industrias Químicas del Vallés v Commission ECLI:EU:C:2017:635 

• UKELA
• PEBA
• ALBA

Privacy Notice