Getting to grips with planning law and with neighbourhood planning … New books in our library

Anyone who reads our blog will know that our research team care about supporting the use of evidence in practice, whether that’s in social services, in housing, or in planning. And one of the unique resources we have to help do this is our very own library!

Created over forty years, there are more than 60,000 books and reports in the library collection, as well as hundreds of different journal titles. Our members can borrow any book from our collection via a postal loan service – offered free as part of the organisational membership subscription to our Idox Information Service.

While quick reads – such as the briefings written by our own team – will always be popular given the pressures on people’s time, there’s still a place for real books. Many organisations use membership of our service as a way to support their staff’s CPD – whether that’s informal personal development or supplementary support for staff doing formal courses or degrees.

Supporting professional CPD

We’re regularly adding new books to our collection and two that caught my eye recently are in the field of planning. We’ve a lot of members who work in planning across the UK, including the RTPI (Royal Town Planning Institute) themselves, and as a profession, planners commit to maintain and develop their expertise through Continuing Professional Development.

Using our book loan service is one way that our members can access new publications and stay up-to-date with current thinking in their sector.

  • Localism and Neighbourhood Planning

Neighbourhood planning was one of the rights and powers introduced under the Localism Act of 2011, and was expected to offer ” a new way for communities to decide the future of the places where they live and work”. Six years on, a new book edited by Sue Bronhill and Quintin Bradley, reflects on whether neighbourhood planning has succeeded in increasing democratic engagement with the planning system.

In particular it examines how localism has played out in practice, especially given the legal and technical skills that are required in planning. As well as exploring the situation in England, the book also looks at how multi-level governance is being applied in the other parts of the UK and in countries such as Australia and France.

It raises interesting questions about whether neighbourhood planning has changed the institutional structure of planning and the power relations involved. It also asks whether an even more progressive form of localism within planning might emerge.

  • Essential Guide to Planning Law

With the planning systems and law devolved within the UK, a book which provides an overview of how practice differs in each nation is much needed. This book covers all the core areas, from development management, planning conditions, planning control and enforcement. It also addresses the planning arrangements in specialist areas such as minerals planning, waste planning and marine planning.

The book serves as a useful reminder of how and why planning decisions are made, and the legal frameworks that underpin planning practice.

The Idox Information Service

As Dr Mike Harris, Deputy Head of Policy and Research at the Royal Town Planning Institute, has said, it’s important that the planning profession is able to access and use evidence and research.

“Research and theory can help to lift the perspective of practitioners beyond the day-to-day demands of the job, to provoke reflection and discussion about the wider social purposes and values of planning. It can also help us better to defend planning from those who would seek to erode it further.”


Our members include policy makers and practitioners from organisations including local authorities, central government, universities, think tanks, consultancies and charities. They work in challenging environments and often need evidence to inform service delivery or decision-making.

Get more information on membership here or contact us to arrange a free trial of our service for your organisation.

Latest developments in Scottish planning and environmental law

spel-177The next year is going to be a busy one for planning in Scotland, judging by the Scottish Government’s Programme for Scotland 2016-17.  The dual priorities of modernisation and increasing housing delivery are shaping policy direction, but it is in the courts that real-world issues affecting implementation and delivery of policy are addressed.

The Knowledge Exchange publishes a bi-monthly journal covering all aspects of planning and environmental law in Scotland. SPEL Journal (Scottish Planning & Environmental Law) launched over 30 years ago and is one of the leading information sources on land use planning and environmental legislation across the country.

A key part of our remit is to provide commentary on significant case law. We also provide a forum for consideration of issues affecting the planning system, from the point of view of solicitors, planners and academics.

Reflecting on recent case law

Key court cases examined in the October 2016 edition include that perennially thorny topic of wind farm consents.

Firstly, the quashing of Stronelairg wind farm consent was overturned by the Inner House. This decision, which included the comment that ‘Creating images from different angles on the surrounding landscape does not provide the public with any information not already readily known and understood,’ may prompt discussions among planning authorities, statutory consultees and applicants about how visualisations and photomontages should be treated.

Secondly, the successful challenge of four offshore windfarm approvals by the RSPB highlights the difficulty for the Government and environmental stakeholders of achieving a balance between a commitment to realising the full potential of renewable energy in Scotland (including off-shore) at the same time as appropriately protecting the marine environment. Finding that necessary balance appears to be proving hard even in relation to projects where the appropriate environmental impact assessment has been carried out.

Other cases covered in October’s SPEL include:

  • Public sector equality duty as a relevant planning consideration [LDRA Ltd & Others v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Others] – This decision is a reminder that protected characteristics have a wide scope and points to an onus being placed on decision-makers to demonstrate that the requirements of s149 of the 2010 Act have been considered.
  • ‘Community focused’ renewables planning permission quashed [R (on the application of Peter Wright) v Forest of Dean District Council and Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd]. This case focused on whether a financial contribution in the context of a wind turbine development may be taken into account in granting planning permission. The decision is in line with previous case law but as Karen Hamilton of Brodies LLP notes “If policy ‘encouragement’ of community schemes is to persist then a clearer path should be laid out to enable participating developers to be credited for their efforts“.
  • Liability of roads authority for injuries to cyclist [Robinson v Scottish Borders Council]. Whereas English courts have been reluctant to impose liability on highway authorities, this judgment found that the hazard would have been apparent to a roads authority of ordinary competence, using reasonable care.

The journal also includes commentary and articles on topical issues and policy developments.


Written by a wide range of subject experts, SPEL Journal includes accessible commentary on topical subjects and current issues.

An annual subscription to SPEL Journal is £145. For further details or a sample copy, please contact Christine Eccleson, SPEL Journal’s Advertising Manager, on 0141 574 1905 or email christine.eccleson@Idoxgroup.com.

Going underground: in London, basement digging is a cheaper way to property expansion – but councils are getting tough on “iceberg homes”

ANTHONY_SALVIN_-_11_Hanover_Terrace_Regent's_Park_London_NW1_4RJ_est (1)

London’s Hanover Terrace, where Damien Hirst is planning an ambitious basement extension to his 19th century villa. Image by Spudgun67 via Creative Commons

 “It was the newly dug three-storey basement that had the guests buzzing. Below the cinema, gym and spa (complete with sauna, pool and massage table) sprawled an enormous six-car garage. But how did the vehicles get down there? Our host, an American who worked in finance, was only too happy to demonstrate: The cars were lowered down by a custom-built automobile elevator built into the parking pad in the side garden.”
Maclean’s 29 July 2015

Basement conversions and extensions are making a big noise in London. In 2001, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea received 46 planning applications for basement conversions. By 2013, that figure had soared to 450 applications. Rising house prices in the capital are making basement conversions more attractive, mostly to super-rich owners. The expansions can add millions to the value of their already expensive properties, and for those needing additional space a conversion can be cheaper than moving home.

But the trend to build down is not universally popular. Some conversions have hit the headlines because ambitious projects by rich and famous owners have triggered objections from their rich and famous neighbours:

  • in 2015, Jon Hunt, founder of Foxtons estate agency, won a legal battle with his neighbours (the French Embassy) to build an enormous basement to house his classic cars (the Embassy plans to challenge the ruling)
  • in 2013, Daimler-Benz heir Gert-Rudolf Flick got permission for a two-storey basement beneath his £30 million house in South Kensington. More than 50 local residents, including the cellist Julian Lloyd Webber, had objected to the construction plans, which they described as “entirely selfish”
  • last year, Queen guitarist Brian May launched a campaign to ban “iceberg homes” that can occupy more space below ground than the original property above

The bad feeling caused by these subterranean grand designs has spawned a new type of nimby – the “numbing” (Not Under My Bloody Idiot Neighbour’s Garden). Disgruntled neighbours’ concerns include:

  • the disruption caused by traffic, plant and equipment
  • the effects on the structural stability of nearby buildings and roads
  • the noise generated during construction (an experience described by Brian May as “an instrument of torture”)

The role of planning

Beyond the headlines, it’s planning authorities who have to deal with applications for basement extensions and to consider the implications.

Conversions of existing cellars don’t always require planning permission, unless the external appearance of the building is altered, for example by adding a light well. However, excavating the ground under a building to create a new basement may require planning permission, and these are the types of projects that can ignite disputes. As Westminster City Council’s 2014 planning guidance observes, with admirable understatement: “basement development is often contentious…”

Rewriting the rules on basement digging

In 2014, the rising tide of concerns prompted the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to revise its policy on basement development. The new policy restricts the extent of basement excavation to no more than under half the garden or open part of the site and limits the depth of excavation to a single storey in most cases.

Westminster City Council has moved to make similar changes to its basement extension policy, as has Richmond Council. As well as acknowledging residents’ concerns about noise and disruption, councils are anxious to address the wider environmental impact both during and after basement development. Westminster’s policy notes that:

“The uses associated with basement spaces may be more energy intensive due to additional requirements for lighting, ventilation and pumps, particularly where underground rooms house swimming pools and media rooms.”

Even if planning permission is not needed for basement development, the changes must comply with building control rules on fire safety, ventilation and structure. Neighbours affected by basement projects should also be aware of their legal position:

The only way is down?

The number of planning applications for domestic basements in London may have more than tripled since 2011, but a sharp deceleration in the rate of growth last year indicates that the trend may have peaked. As more boroughs tighten the conditions imposed on basement development, building costs are likely to rise and planning processes may be prolonged.

For some owners, however, thousands of pounds in additional costs is a drop in the ocean. Last month, artist Damien Hirst overcame council objections to extend the basement of his home in Westminster. Once the work is complete, it could more than double the value of his historic mansion, making it worth £100 million.

Hot topics in Scottish planning and environmental law

spel feb headerThe Knowledge Exchange publishes a bi-monthly journal covering all aspects of planning and environmental law in Scotland. SPEL Journal (Scottish Planning & Environmental Law) launched over 30 years ago and is one of the leading information sources on land use planning and environmental legislation across the country.

Our latest edition of SPEL includes articles focusing on:

  • Outcomes of the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference
  • The practical experience of delivering Planning Permissions in Principle
  • Wild land maps and their impact on planning law and policy
  • Hut development and the planning system – a significant shift.

Key court cases examined in the February edition include:

  • Sally Carroll v Scottish Borders Council – A wind turbine case which has clarified the role of Local Review Boards.
  • Stewart Milne Group Ltd v The Scottish Ministers – An appeal against refusal for residential development, which further consolidates the position adopted by the Supreme Court in Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012].
  • The John Muir Trust v The Scottish Ministers – Wind farm consent has been reduced, as a result of the processes followed in the case for consideration of responses from consultative bodies.

SPEL was launched in 1980 as ‘Scottish Planning Law & Practice’, to be a journal of record of Scottish planning. When it became apparent that the emerging field of environmental law was strongly linked to land use planning, the name of our journal changed to reflect this.

Written by a wide range of subject experts, SPEL Journal includes accessible commentary on topical subjects and current issues; details of new legislation and significant court cases; expert comment on key planning appeal decisions, government circulars and guidance; as well as notes about ombudsman cases and book reviews.

SPEL Journal is read by decision makers in Scottish planning authorities, planning law practices, planning consultancies, architects, surveyors, civil engineers, environmental managers and developers across Scotland. It is also valued by many practitioners outside of Scotland who need to keep abreast of developments.


An annual subscription to SPEL Journal is £145. For further details or a sample copy, please contact Christine Eccleson, SPEL Journal’s Advertising Manager, on 0141 574 1905 or email christine.eccleson@Idoxgroup.com.

The changing landscape of planning: Scottish Planning & Environmental Law Conference 2015

spel conference image 2By Morwen Johnson

This year’s SPEL Conference is on Thursday 17 September in Edinburgh, and we’re finalising an insightful programme. In a fast moving economic and political environment, the last 12 months has witnessed many developments which impact on the planning system. This year’s conference will provide a space for the planning and environmental law community to discuss and debate these.

Key topics

Key issues to be explored include planning issues around unconventional gas. Public controversy in the UK over fracking has received considerable news coverage in the last few months. Just two weeks ago, the shale gas firm Cuadrilla announced it was to appeal against the decision by Lancashire County Council to refuse permission to drill and frack at two sites in the county (Little Plumpton and Roseacre Wood on the Fylde Coast). The Scottish Government also announced in January a moratorium on granting planning consents for unconventional oil and gas developments, including fracking, while further research and a public consultation are carried out. We’re bringing together representatives from the legal and business viewpoints at the conference to explore the implications.

Another hot topic is how the planning system can ensure the delivery of housing land. Neil Collar from Brodies LLP wrote in the last issue of Scottish Planning and Environmental Law Journal about how planning authorities and developers both have a role to play. From a practitioner point of view, he highlighted that local planning authorities need to address development promotion – not just identifying sites in in plans but taking a proactive approach to delivery, for example addressing issues such as multiple ownership or infrastructure requirements at an early stage. The SPEL Conference will explore this in more depth.

As usual we’ll also be reflecting on national planning policy, and the programme of planning modernisation. We’ve been running the SPEL conference for nearly 20 years and in this time it has gained a reputation for being a forum for open and critical debate about the operation of the planning system in Scotland.

Conference programme

The programme features a broad range of speakers, bringing perspectives from the private sector, local government planning, academia and central government to bear on the issues.

Confirmed key speakers include:

  • Professor David Adams, Ian Mactaggart Chair of Property and Urban Studies, University of Glasgow
  • David Leslie, Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, The City of Edinburgh Council
  • Nick Wright, Nick Wright Planning and due to be Convenor, RTPI Scotland in 2016
  • Maurice O’Carroll, Advocate, Terra Firma Chambers
  • Alasdair Sutherland, Advocate, Terra Firma Chambers

We’re also delighted that Gordon Steele, QC, will be chairing the conference for us.

If you’re interested in planning or environmental law in Scotland then SPEL Conference 2015 is the perfect chance to hear about the latest developments and network with others.


The 2015 Scottish Planning and Environmental Law Conference is on 17 September at the COSLA Conference Centre, Edinburgh.

The full conference programme and booking form are available here.

Morwen Johnson is the Managing Editor of Scottish Planning and Environmental Law Journal.

Who decides and interprets planning policy … planners or lawyers?

Image from Flickr user Sebastian Niedlich, licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons License

Image via Flickr user Sebastian Niedlich, licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons License

By Morwen Johnson

Nathalie Lieven QC, barrister at Landmark Chambers, spoke at the RTPI’s 2015 Planning Convention on the shifting relationship between planners, policymakers and lawyers. Nathalie regularly appears at public inquiries and planning challenges in the High Court, appearing for both developers and local authorities.

Discussing the massive upsurge in litigation in planning, personified in the creation of the Planning Court in 2014, Nathalie suggested there had been a power grab by lawyers over the planning system in the last few years. She highlighted two main reasons: the decision of the Supreme Court in Tesco v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13, and the introduction in England of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’).

Recent shift in power

Prior to the Tesco case, interpretation of planning policy was seen as the task of the decision-maker. Cases only went to court if this interpretation was seen as ‘unreasonable’. This approach makes sense if you consider that planning policy tends not to have the level of semantic detail that is expected in law, and is also a recognition that application of policy can be different in different contexts.

The Supreme Court ruling however was that interpretation of policy in the case was a matter for the court and policy should be interpreted objectively. The aim may have been to create intellectual clarity and better decision-making, but the ruling has coincided with the introduction of NPPF, which is in some parts obscurely worded and also contradictory. With many development plans out of date, NPPF has become the critical determining document in planning appeals.

Particularly in residential housing appeals, the system now relies on both the interpretation of words in the NPPF and also previous rulings by High Court judges as to what the words mean. In respect of development planning, plans now get limited scrutiny and the role of the court also becomes more important. In the short-term therefore, power over planning decisions has shifted to the centre, in marked contrast to the Westminster government’s support for localism and devolution.

The role of the court is creating, in Nathalie’s words “a straitjacket for decision-makers, which limits their ability to apply policy flexibly”.

How local authorities can regain the balance of power

She suggested however that it is worth remembering that in the Tesco case, the Supreme Court was careful to say that the issue related to the application of policy to a given set of facts, rather than interpretation of policy generally.

Planning authorities can therefore turn the ruling to their advantage by drafting planning policies in a hard-edged way. As policies need to be applied in a consistent and objective way, the clearer the development plan, the less room for appeal.


Morwen Johnson is Managing Editor of the Scottish Planning and Environmental Law Journal, which is published by Idox.

More information on the journal and how to subscribe can be found here.

February issue of SPEL Journal (Scottish Planning & Environmental Law)

spel feb 2015The Knowledge Exchange publishes a bi-monthly journal covering all aspects of planning and environmental law in Scotland. SPEL Journal (Scottish Planning & Environmental Law) launched over 30 years ago and is one of the leading information sources on land use planning and environmental legislation across the country.

The latest edition of SPEL includes articles focusing on:

Key court cases examined in the February edition include:

  • Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government v Venn – Aarhus and Protective Costs Orders
  • The John Muir Trust v The Scottish Ministers  – Protective Expenses Order
  • South Lanarkshire Council v Coface SA  – Liability for restoration payment
  • Hallam Land Management Ltd v The Scottish Ministers  – Housing supply and education infrastructure

SPEL was launched in 1980 as ‘Scottish Planning Law & Practice’, to be a journal of record of Scottish planning. When it became apparent that the emerging field of environmental law was strongly linked to land use planning, the name of our journal changed to reflect this.

Written by a wide range of subject experts, SPEL Journal includes accessible commentary on topical subjects and current issues; details of new legislation and significant court cases; expert comment on key planning appeal decisions, government circulars and guidance; as well as notes about ombudsman cases and book reviews.

SPEL Journal is read by decision makers in Scottish planning authorities, planning law practices, planning consultancies, architects, surveyors, civil engineers, environmental managers and developers across Scotland. It is also valued by many practitioners outside of Scotland who need to keep abreast of developments.

An annual subscription to SPEL Journal is £145. For further details or a sample copy, please contact Christine Eccleson, SPEL Journal’s Advertising Manager, on 0141 574 1905 or email christine.eccleson@Idoxgroup.com.

Can the NPPF be used to encourage better design? A look at a recent High Court decision…

by Laura Dobie

A recent High Court decision has significant implications for interpreting the design policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG).

Handing down the decision in Horsham District Council v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1), Barratt Southern Counties Limited (2) on 23rd January 2015, Mr Justice Lindblom stated “It is not a general principle in planning law that an acceptable proposal for development should be turned away because a better one might be put forward instead”, dismissing the notion that this principle had not persisted with the introduction of the NPPF.

The case revolved around the question of whether an inspector had failed to take account of whether a better designed scheme could be conceived for a development site.

The Court dismissed an application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by Horsham District Council for an order to quash the decision of the inspector – appointed by the first defendant, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government –  to allow the appeal of the second defendant, Barratt Southern Counties Limited (“Barratt”), against refusal of planning permission for a development of 160 dwellings on land to the north of West End Lane in Henfield, West Sussex.

The Council had contested the grant of planning permission. During an inquiry the council submitted that the proposed development was a poor design which obscured views of the landscape, that a well-designed scheme should contain view corridors to retain these important views, and that it was fundamental to the principles in the NPPF regarding good design and the need to incorporate development into the character of the area, that such a scheme should preserve these views.

The inspector concluded that the likely “adverse environmental effects” of the proposed development were “limited” and did not outweigh “the considerable social and economic benefits” with respect to the early provision of new homes in circumstances of a local shortfall. He considered that policy in the NPPF did not indicate that the development should be restricted, and that the development would therefore be “sustainable”, and “the presumption in favour of such development should be applied”.

The Council argued that the inspector was not entitled to grant planning permission for Barratt’s proposal while it was still possible for a scheme to come forward in which long views from the site would be better protected, in light of policy set out in paragraph 64 of the NPPF that “permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.”

In his ruling, Mr Justice Lindblom stated that the NPPF does not say that a proposal which does not take every conceivable opportunity to enhance the character and quality of an area, or which does not deliver as well in this respect as a different proposal might have done, must therefore automatically be rejected.

He noted that the inspector focused on the policy in paragraph 64, as well as the wider policies on the design of development within which that paragraph is set, and that he exercised his own judgment on the issues relating to “good design” and “poor design” in light of these policies, concluded firmly that the proposal was not of “poor design”, and brought that conclusion into the comprehensive assessment of the planning merits on which he based his decision.

Referring to the decision in First Secretary of State and West End Green (Properties) Ltd. v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd., Mr Justice Lindblom stated that in this case, the fact that an alternative approach could have been adopted in the design of the development, and that this could have maintained some views from the site which would have been obscured by Barratt’s development, did not mean that the design of the proposal the inspector was considering contravened government policy in the NPPF.

The judge went on to state that the inspector was entitled, and in fact, required, to exercise his own judgment on whether the scheme constituted poor design under the NPPF, and that he did so in an entirely lawful manner, applying NPPF policy appropriately. He noted that, “It may be that the council disagrees with him, but such disagreement is not ammunition for a legal challenge.”

The Court also reiterated the principle that an application under section 288 of the 1990 Act does not afford “an opportunity for a review of the planning merits” of an inspector’s decision.

This case indicates that an acceptable scheme cannot be rejected to encourage an improved scheme, given the design policies of the NPPF and the NPPG.

Full details of the final judgement are available here.

October issue of SPEL Journal (Scottish Planning & Environmental Law)

SPEL 165The Knowledge Exchange publishes a bi-monthly journal covering all aspects of planning and environmental law in Scotland. SPEL Journal (Scottish Planning & Environmental Law) launched over 30 years ago and is one of the leading information sources on land use planning and environmental legislation across the country.

The latest edition of SPEL includes articles focusing on:

Key court cases examined in the October edition include:

It also looks at proposed planning controls for payday lending and betting offices; and features a KnowHow article on amenity notices.

SPEL was launched in 1980 as ‘Scottish Planning Law & Practice’, to be a journal of record of Scottish planning. When it became apparent that the emerging field of environmental law was strongly linked to land use planning, the name of our journal changed to reflect this.

Written by a wide range of subject experts, SPEL Journal includes accessible commentary on topical subjects and current issues; details of new legislation and significant court cases; expert comment on key planning appeal decisions, government circulars and guidance; as well as notes about ombudsman cases and book reviews.

SPEL Journal is read by decision makers in Scottish planning authorities, planning law practices, planning consultancies, architects, surveyors, civil engineers, environmental managers and developers across Scotland. It is also valued by many practitioners outside of Scotland who need to keep abreast of developments.

An annual subscription to SPEL Journal is £145. For further details or a sample copy, please contact Christine Eccleson, SPEL Journal’s Advertising Manager, on 0141 574 1905 or email christine.eccleson@Idoxgroup.com.

Meeting ambitious targets: Scottish Planning & Environmental Law conference 2014

SPEL Conference brand image

There’s less than two months to go until this year’s Scottish Planning and Environmental Law conference so we thought we’d flag up some of the expected highlights. We’ve been running the SPEL conference for nearly 20 years and in this time its gained a reputation for being a forum for open and critical debate about the operation of the planning system in Scotland.

This year’s conference focuses on the theme of “meeting ambitious targets”. Scotland has some of the most ambitious targets in Europe – if not the world – when it comes to addressing climate change issues. Like the rest of the UK, Scotland is also facing challenges around ensuring adequate housing supply, especially affordable housing.

We expect that the conference will provide an ideal opportunity for discussing the implications of recent decisions on key renewable energy applications, as well as the intersection of the planning system with the housebuilding industry.

As usual we will also be reflecting on national planning policy, assessing the potential impact of NPF3 and Scottish Planning Policy on planning outcomes and performance, three months after they were laid before Parliament.

The programme features a broad range of speakers, bringing perspectives from the private sector, local government planning, academia and central government to bear on the issues.

Key speakers include:

  • Professor Greg Lloyd, Head of School of the Built Environment, University of Ulster
  • John McNairney, Chief Planner, The Scottish Government
  • Lindsey Nicoll, Chief Reporter, Directorate for Planning & Environmental Appeals
  • Nick Wright, Nick Wright Planning and Junior Vice Convenor, RTPI Scotland
  • James Findlay, Advocate (QC England and Wales), Terra Firma Chambers
  • Michael McGlynn, Head of Planning & Building Standards Services, South Lanarkshire Council

We’re also delighted that Rt. Hon Sir Menzies Campbell will be chairing the conference for us.

If you’re interested in planning or environmental law in Scotland then SPEL 2014 is the perfect chance to hear about the latest developments and network with others.

 

Note about the conference:

The 2014 Scottish Planning and Environmental Law conference is on 24 September at The Teacher Building in Glasgow.

The full conference programme and booking form are available here.