Andrew Parkinson > Chambers of David Holland KC and Reuben Taylor KC > London, England > Lawyer Profile

Chambers of David Holland KC and Reuben Taylor KC
Landmark Chambers


Andrew was called to the Bar in 2010. His practice covers all areas of planning and environmental law. He represents developers, local authorities, and a variety of interested parties at inquiry, in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal.

Andrew was ranked 5th in a recent survey of the top-rated planning barristers under the age of 35 (Planning Magazine, 2016). He is regularly involved in important cases in the High Court and Court of Appeal. Three of his cases were included in the Journal of Planning Law’s recent summary of important cases from 2017.

Examples of his work in the last 12 months includes:

  • Appearing un-led in the Planning Court in a number of successful judicial review challenges, brought by developers and other interested parties, to the grant of planning permission by local planning authorities: see Boot v Elmbridge BC [2017] 2 P. & C.R. 6 – failure to correctly interpret Green Belt policy in the NPPF; Butler v East Dorset District Council [2016] EWHC 1527 (Admin) – failure to interpret development plan policies and apply section 38(6) PCPA 2004; Cooper v Ashford Borough Council [2016] P.T.S.R. 1455 – failure to apply section 38(6) PCPA 2004; R (XY) v Maidstone Borough Council [2016] EWHC 1436 (Admin) – failure to have regard to material considerations; Relta v GLA [2017] EWHC 671 (Admin) – failure of the Mayor of London to interpret his policy on Housing Zones; Robb v South Cambridgeshire DC [2017] EWHC 594 (Admin) – failure to correctly interpret Green Belt policy in the NPPF.
  • Appearing at a number of planning appeals for local authorities, developers and other interested parties, including for developer clients in recovered appeals for residential schemes at Hatchfield Farm (Newmarket) and Henwick Park (Thatcham); local authority clients (primarily resisting residential, extra-care and mixed-use schemes); and other interested parties (primarily Parish Councils resisting proposals on the basis of Neighbourhood Plan policies).
  • Appearing for a number of NGOs in a successful High Court challenge to the Government’s new rules on costs in environmental cases (RSPB and others v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWHC 2309 (Admin)): see national press coverage here.
  • Appearing in the Court of Appeal for the main objector to a new railway proposed in Manchester, in a case concerning the correct interpretation of national planning policy on heritage (led by Richard Drabble QC). Andrew appeared (unled) for the leading objector at the 3 week inquiry into the proposal: see Whitby v SST [2016] EWCA Civ 444 and national press coverage here and here.
  • Acting for RBKC in the “Red and white striped house” case in Kensington, including appearing in the leading case on the scope of section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Lisle-Mainwaring v RBKC [2017] P.T.S.R. 850) and successfully resisting proposals for a double storey basement at a 4 day planning inquiry: see national press coverage here and here. The case recently featured on a Channel 4 documentary, “Posh Neighbours at War”.


Andrew graduated from Oxford University in 2007 with a degree in History (first class). Between 2007 and 2009 he studied for a Graduate Diploma in Law (Distinction). He completed the Bar Vocational Course at City University in 2009-2010. He has an LLM in Environmental Law and Policy from UCL (Distinction)

Scholarships and Awards
Lincoln’s Inn: Lord Denning; Hardwicke; and Cholmeley Scholarships.

Oxford University: Gladstone Memorial Essay Prize; Mary Somerville Prize; and Coombs Exhibition.

Lawyer Rankings

London Bar > Planning

(Leading Juniors)Ranked: Tier 3

Andrew Parkinson  – Landmark Chambers  ‘Andrew quickly acquires a mastery of complex, technical evidence, has a superb grasp of all aspects of planning law, and his written advice is of the highest order. Andrew is extremely popular with clients, who express appreciation for the outstanding service he provides, including his clear, concise, commercially focused advice. He is a successful advocate, with excellent cross-examination skills, a complete mastery of the details of a case with his efficient, thorough, and engaging approach.’