Legal News

Lexis®PSL Planning weekly highlights—28 July 2016

Published on: 28 July 2016
Published by: LexisPSL
  • Lexis®PSL Planning weekly highlights—28 July 2016
  • In this issue:
  • Changes to the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) regime—less devolution, improved planning?
  • Post-referendum litigation—no need to panic
  • Planning Inspectorate performance report
  • Headlines (News updates & analysis)
  • CPR changes—October 2016
  • Home Loss Payments (Prescribed Amounts) (England) Regulations 2016
  • London City Airport expansion plans announced
  • Development Consent Order–Meaford Gas Fired Generating Station
  • More...

Article summary

This week’s Planning highlights include: (1) Changes to the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime—less devolution, improved planning?; (2) Post-referendum litigation—no need to panic; (3) Planning Inspectorate performance report; (4) CPR changes—October 2016; (5) Home Loss Payments (Prescribed Amounts) (England) Regulations 2016; (6) London City Airport expansion plans announced; (7) Development Consent Order–Meaford Gas Fired Generating Station; (8) Development Consent Order–York Potash Harbour Facilities; (9) Secretary of State blocks significant rail development in the Green Belt; (10) Future of the natural environment post-Brexit—inquiry launched; (11) Consulting on indicators for the environmental performance of buildings; (12) Inquiry seeks evidence on Marine Protected Areas; (13) National Planning Policy Framework revision pushed back; (14) Administrative Court judicial review guide 2016 published; (15) Balfour Beatty sets out future infrastructure needs; (16) National Audit Office questions delivery of major projects after Brexit; (17) Local Government Ombudsman raises inconsistencies in local authorities' decision-making; (18) Hilde Orleans and Others v Vlaams Gewest; (19) Kestrel Hydro v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; (20) R (Trago Mills) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; (21) Appeal tracker–R (Lensbury) v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council; (22) Appeal tracker–R (Wright) v Forest of Dean District Council; and (23) Appeal tracker–R (Menston Action Group) v City of Bradfrod Metropolitan District Council. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents