Matthew Fraser > Chambers of David Holland KC and Reuben Taylor KC > London, England > Lawyer Profile

Chambers of David Holland KC and Reuben Taylor KC
Landmark Chambers


Matthew has a broad practice in public law, planning law and environmental law. He also has expertise in property law.  

He is a member of the Attorney General’s C Panel of Counsel. 

Matthew is ranked by the Legal 500 as a “Rising Star” in planning law: “An up-and-coming junior who is regarded by the senior QCs in Chambers as a trusted junior. Personable and responsive“.

Matthew has been ranked among the top barristers in planning law under the age of 35 in the Planning Magazine’s 2018, 2019 and 2020 Legal Surveys.

He read Philosophy, Politics and Economics at the University of Oxford (Balliol College), before completing an LLM (Qualifying Law Degree) at Birkbeck, University of London, and the BPTC at City University. 

Recent highlights of his practice include: 

  • RR v SSWP  [2019] 1 W.L.R. 6430 – Major constitutional case in the Supreme Court about what remedy a tribunal can grant to victims of the bedroom tax – acted for the successful appellant.
  • Dover DC & China Gateway International Ltd v CPRE Kent  [2018] 1 W.L.R. 108 – Leading case in the Supreme Court concerning the duty on local authorities to give reasons for planning decisions.
  • Aireborough Neighbourhood Development Forum v Leeds City Council  [2020] 1 W.L.R. 2355; [2020] 1461 (Admin); [2020] EWHC 2183 (Admin) – Challenge to the Leeds Site Allocations Plan (three judgments dealing with: legal capacity to bring proceedings; the substantive claim; relief).
  • Kaitey v SSHD  [2020] EWHC 1861 (Admin) – Challenge to the lawfulness of imposing conditional immigration bail on people whose detention would be unlawful (permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal granted).
  • Monkhill Ltd v SSHCLG [2020] J.P.L. 175 – Meaning of policies providing a “clear reason for refusal” in National Planning Policy Framework para. 11(d) (appeal to Court of Appeal pending).
  • Peel Investments (North) Ltd v SSHCLG  [2020] J.P.L. 278 – Meaning of “out-of-date” in National Planning Policy Framework para. 11(d) (appeal to Court of Appeal pending).
  • Tower Hamlets LBC v SSHCLG  [2020] P.T.S.R. 111 – Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework para. 196 on harm to heritage assets.
  • HJ Banks & Company Ltd v SSHCLG  [2019] P.T.S.R. 668 – a challenge to the decision to refuse planning permission for a new open-cast coal mine (acting for Friends of the Earth).


  • Balliol College, University of Oxford (BA, Philosophy, Politics and Economics)
  • Birkbeck, University of London (Distinction, LLM Qualifying Law Degree)
  • City University London (Outstanding, BPTC)

Lawyer Rankings

London Bar > Planning

(Leading Juniors)Ranked: Tier 4

Matthew Fraser  – Landmark Chambers  ‘Matt is an excellent barrister with a detailed knowledge of law and is particularly good with clients.  His advocacy skills are calm and collected, delivered in a structured and methodological manner, which is very compelling.’

Pre-eminent planning setLandmark Chambers is home to an ‘unrivalled breadth of talent’ as exhibited by its ‘highly impressive’ clerks, ‘heavyweight silks with outstanding capabilities’, and skilled junior barristers. The members display ‘great strength in depth’ across all areas of planning law, featuring heavily in significant inquiries, and promoting new towns and urban extensions in addition to mixed-use developments across the country. In the past year, Dan Kolinsky KC represented LB Southwark in R (Flynn) v LB Southwark, successfully defending the challenge against a major regeneration project to replace the Elephant & Castle shopping centre at first instance and in the Court of Appeal. David Elvin KC represented Raycliff Whitechapel in the Whitechapel Bell Foundry call-in inquiry, which involved consideration of heritage benefits contrasted with harms regarding the restoration and refurbishment proposals for the former bell foundry. Anjoli Foster  successfully represented Brighton and Hove CC in the Brighton Marina inquiry which concerned the opposition to a major redevelopment, whilst Matthew Fraser represented the Whitstable Oyster Company in their appeal against an enforcement notice requiring the removal of metal trestles for oyster cultivation.

London Bar > Administrative law and human rights

(Leading Juniors)Ranked: Tier 3

Matthew Fraser Landmark Chambers