Landmark Chambers

Guy is a specialist planning barrister with particular expertise in planning and compulsory purchase inquiries and compensation claims. His practice covers s78 appeals and enforcement appeals, with a focus on residential and mixed-use development.

Guy Williams won the award for Planning and Land Use Junior of the Year at the 2022 Legal 500 UK Bar Awards.

Guy appears very regularly at planning inquiries in relation to all kinds of development. He acts for developers, local authorities, public bodies and interest groups and has a wide experience of appeals, called-in applications, enforcement matters and compulsory purchase inquiries.

He has a particular caseload at inquiries for housing schemes, including where housing land supply is in issue. He acted for the Government on a number of cases on the proper interpretation of the NPPF (e.g. Paul Newman New Homes Limited on the triggers for the tilted balance; City and Country Bramshill on the approach to less than substantial heritage harm, and isolated hew homes in the countryside; Chichester DC relating to the NPPF and neighborhood plans). He has a real interest in cases raising heritage issues, and appeared in the Court of Appeal in the leading case on heritage matters City and Country Bramshill Ltd v SSHCLG [2021] 1 WLR 5761.

He also specialises in judicial review and statutory challenges relating to planning and local government in the higher courts.

Guy has an extensive practice in all matters relating to compulsory purchase, from advising acquiring authorities and developers on strategy and promoting CPOs, to all matters of compensation arising from compulsory acquisition. Guy promoted the Brent Cross, Cricklewood CPOs for the London Borough of Barnet delivering a new mixed use town centre, a new Thameslink station and 7,500 homes. He is also advising HS2 limited in relation to a number of claims for compensation arising out of the first stage of the HS2 rail link from London to Birmingham, including those the subject of recent argument before the Supreme Court in Secretary of State for Transport v Curzon Park Limited and others. He has appeared in several high profile compensation cases (such as Bishop v TfL).

Guy Williams won the award for Planning and Land Use Junior of the Year at the 2022 Legal 500 UK Bar Awards.

Rating and Valuation

He also has an active rating practice, including the litigation relating to the rating of ATMs that went to the Supreme Court in 2020, and the recent clarification by the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) of the scope of the mode or category of occupation in SSE Plc v Moore (Valuation Officer) [2023] UKUT 24 (LC).

For many years Guy has been identified as a leading junior in Chambers and Partners, the Legal 500 and Planning magazine’s Legal Survey (ranked in tier 1 in Chambers and Partners for at least the past three years).

Cases

Guy regularly appears in the Higher Courts in claims for judicial review and statutory challenges focused on planning and was on the Attorney-General’s A panel for 5 years prior to taking silk. As such he defended numerous challenges under sections 288 and 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act. Recent cases include:

• Manchester Ship Canal Company v SSEFRA [2022] EWHC Admin: a challenge to the Secretary of State’s confirmation of a CPO authorizing the discharge of water from a sewage treatment facility into the Manchester Ship Canal raising issues of the scope of the protections afforded to the Ship Canal Company, and human rights and proportionality issues.

• Secretary of State for Transport v Curzon Park Ltd – in the Court of Appeal (2022) and Supreme Court (2023): a preliminary issue as to the proper approach to the determination of applications for certificates of appropriate alternative development relating to the planning potential of land in Birmingham acquired to deliver HS2.

• Abbotskerswell PC v SSHCLG [2021] Env LR 28: a s288 challenge to the grant of permission for a major mixed-use development raising issues of climate change and green house gases, and the interpretation and application of the Habitats Regulations and Appropriate Assessment including mitigation.

• City and Country Bramshill Ltd v SSHCLG [2022] 2 P&CR 5: Court of Appeal case on a s288 challenge where the key issues were the meaning of ‘isolated housing in the countryside’ and the proper approach to the heritage balance in cases of less than substantial harm in light of the statutory duties for listed buildings and conservation areas.

• Keep Bourne End Green v Buckinghamshire Council [2021] JPL 181: a High Court statutory review of the decision of the Council to adopt the Wycombe Local Plan focusing on the decision within the Plan to remove land from the Green Belt for housing purposes and whether there were exceptional circumstances for doing so based on housing need.

• Paul Newman Homes Ltd v SSCHLG [2021] PTSR 1054 Court of Appeal decision on a s288 challenge where the critical issue was the meaning of the phrase “where there are no relevant development plan policies or the policies most important for determining the application are out of date” in the NPPF for the purposes of triggering the tilted balance.

• Dill v SSHCLG [2020] PTSR 907 Supreme Court decision on the ability for an appellant to raise on an appeal against the refusal of listed building consent and/or a listed building enforcement notice the question of whether the item was a listed building or not a building at all; and what the correct approach was to determining whether something was a building in that context.

• R (on the application of BACI Bedfordshire Ltd v Environment Agency [2020] Env LR 16: Court of Appeal decision on a judicial review of the issue of an environmental permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations for a waste incinerator raising issues of mistake of fact and/or irrationality based on scientific error.

• Chichester DC v SSHCLG [2020] 1 P&CR 9. Court of Appeal decision on a s288 challenge on the proper interpretation of Neighbourhood Plan policies seeking to limited development outside of the settlement boundaries and whether or not a development may be contrary to the underlying purpose of the plan but not contrary to its policies in a way that weighs in the planning balance.

• Norman v SSHCLG [2019] Env LR 14: High Court decision on a s288 challenge relating to the correct policy approach to the assessment of the odour impacts of an intensive poultry farm.

• Politics, Philosophy and Economics at Brasenose College, Oxford (MA Hons)

• Diploma in Law at City University (Distinction)

Memberships

• Assistant editor of the Encylopaedia of Planning Law

• Compulsory Purchase Association

• Planning and Environmental Bar Association

• United Kingdom Environmental Law Association