Charles Streeten > Francis Taylor Building > London

Charles Streeten has rapidly earned a reputation as one of the leading junior barristers in planning, environmental and public / administrative law. He was appointed to the Attorney General's panel of counsel ('C' Panel) at the first opportunity, joined the 'B' Panel in 2021 as the most junior barrister and was appointed to the 'A' Panel in 2024.

Charles is currently ranked across three different practice areas (Environment, Planning, and Licensing) by both the Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners, including as a Tier 1 Leading Junior. He is ranked by the Planning Law Survey as one of the top 10 barristers under 35, as well as one of the overall top-rated planning juniors. In 2018 he was nominated as the Young Pro Bono Barrister of the year.

Charles specialises in environmental, planning, licensing, EU and wider public/ administrative law. He regularly appears at public inquiries and is particularly highly regarded for his judicial review work. He has appeared before the Supreme Court and Court of Justice of the European Union, as well as in around 50 reported cases before the Court of Appeal and High Court, more often than not as sole counsel. He acts for central government, developers, public/ local authorities, and other interested parties including pressure groups.

His clients range from large energy and minerals companies, including Shell and Tarmac, to major infrastructure provides (Thames Water and Hirwaun Power) and one of Europe’s largest renewables investment funds (Greencoat). He has also acted for high profile environmental campaign groups including Friends of the Earth, a well-known Extinction Rebellion protestor, and the Sheffield Tree Protesters.

In the past year he appeared in a number of the most significant planning and environmental cases, including the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre Inquiry, the Sizewell DCO Examination, and the 8 Albert Embankment Inquiry.

He has particular expertise in cases raising difficult points of public, EU, or international law.

Recent / significant cases include:

Supreme Court

R (Hemming) v Westminster CC [2017] UKSC 50 (For the successful Defendant in the leading case on the extent of a claimant’s entitlement to restitution in public law.)

CJEU

C-316/15 Hemming v Westminster CC [2017] 3 W.L.R. 317 (Compatibility of licensing fees with the Services Directive.)

Court of Appeal

R (UTAG) v TfL [2021] EWCA Civ 1197 (appeal concerning the Mayor of London’s controversial StreetSpace Plan following the coronavirus pandemic)
SoSHCLG v Ikram [2021] EWCA Civ 2 (appeared successfully in an appeal establishing that conditions must restrict the use to that assessed)
Gluck v SoSHCLG [2020] EWCA Civ 1756 (successfully resisting an important appeal, for the Secretary of State, regarding the ability to extend time under the GPDO and on the meaning of “agreement in writing”)
DB Aymmetry Ltd v Swindon LBC [2020] EWCA Civ 1331 (appearing for the Secretary of State, successfully overturning the High Court’s decision that a planning condition could lawfully require land to be used as a public highway)
Gathercole v Suffolk CC [2020] EWCA Civ 1179 (leading case on the PSED in planning and on alternatives in environmental impact assessment)
R (LOGS) v Liverpool CC [2020] EWCA Civ 861 (important appeal concerning the importance of reporting conservation advice and on the meaning of “green wedge” policy)
R (Rehman) v Wakefield CC [2019] EWCA civ 2166 (successfully appeared before the Master of the Rolls in a case establishing the illegality of charging for the costs of monitoring and enforcement of hackney carriage licencing)
R (Shirley) v SoSCLG [2019] EWCA Civ 22 (leading case on the approach to Air Quality in planning)
R (Goring-on-Thames PC) v South Oxfordshire DC [2018] EWCA Civ 860 (Sole counsel before the Master of the Rolls, McCombe, and Lindblom LJ on the interpretation of 31(2A) Senior Courts Act and the requirement for reasons when permission refused without an oral hearing)
R (Tarmac Aggregates Ltd) v SoS Environment [2015] EWCA Civ 1149 (Successful appeal for Tarmac in the leading domestic case on the definition of 'waste recovery' under Waste Framework Directive. Establishes that the use of waste to restore a quarry pursuant to a planning condition is a recovery operation)

High Court / Divisional Court

Choiceplance Properties Ltd v SoSHCLG [2021] EWHC 1070 (Admin) (appeared successfully for the Secretary of State, establishing the unlawfulness of development which did not comply with plans going beyond the site’s boundary)
R (Keir) v Natural England [2021] EWHC 1059 (Admin) (high profile challenge to the decision to grant licences for works affecting protected species in relation to HS2)
Hackney LBC v SoSHCLG [2021] EWHC 720 (Admin) (successful challenge to the Secretary of State’s interpretation of the GPDO and the meaning of “flat” for the purposes of the London Plan).
Malvern Hills DC v SoSHCLG [2021] EWHC 129 (Admin) (successfully resisting a challenge concerning the stationing of a historic British Railways crane)
R (UTAG) v TfL [2021] EWHC 72 & 73 (Admin) (high profile challenge to the Mayor of London’s StreetSpace Plan, including a separate judgment on the admissibility of ex post facto evidence)
Gluck v SoSHCLG [2020] EWHC 161 (Admin) (appearing for the Secretary of State in an important decision establishing the ability to extend time for prior approval under the GPDO and the meaning of “agreement in writing”
Anand v RBKC [2019] EWHC 2964 (Admin) (successfully resisting a challenge by the Central Gurdwara raising issues relating to equalities, consultation, and legitimate expectation)
Islington LBC v SoSHCLG [2019] EWHC 2691 (Admin) (successful appearance for Islington in the leading case on establishing immunity from enforcement action)
Goodman v SoSHCLG [2019] EWHC 2226 (Admin) (successfully resisted a challenge to an Inspector's approach to "identified housing need" in his decision letter)
Ikram v SoSHCLG [2019] EWHC 1869 (Admin) (for the successful claimant an Inspector's decision to grant planning permission for a Mosque and secured the quashing of the permission even after the developer executed an ex post facto s 106 planning obligation designed to remedy the defect)
Swindon BC v SoSHCLG [2019] EWHC 1677 (Admin) (resisted a challenge to an Inspector's interpretation of the word "highway", which the court held required public access)
R (We Love Hackney Limited) v Hackney LBC [2019] Costs LR 463 (successfully resisted a costs capping order and secured security for costs, following which the claim was struck out. Leading case on costs capping orders)
R (Lakenheath PC) v Suffolk CC [2019] EWHC 978 (Admin) (challenge to the decision to grant permission for a primary school near an RAF Air Base. Considers the proper approach to the Public Sector Equality Duty and establishes the test for the consideration of alternatives in EIA following Holohan)
R (Broad) v Richard DC [2019] EWHC 628 (Admin) (successfully resisted a claim for judicial review of a grant of planning permission where the proposed scheme had been amended without consultation)
R (ICAEW) v Lord Chancellor [2019] EWHC 461 (Admin) (successfully resisted a challenge by the Institute of Chartered Accountants for England and Wales to the Lord Chancellor's decision to reject their application to become an approved regulator)
R (LOGS) v Liverpool CC [2019] EWHC 55 (Admin) (successful claim for judicial review on the basis of misinterpretation of green wedge policy)
R (Rehman) v Wakefield Council [2018] EWHC 3664 (Admin) (successful claim for judicial review of Council taxi licence fees)
R (Becker) v Hertfordshire CC [2018] EWHC 1974 (Admin) (successfully resisted a challenge to the grant of planning permission for a green waste facility in the Green Belt. Acting for the Interested Party whose submissions were accepted in preference to the argument advanced on behalf of the Defendant)
R (Newey) v South Hams DC [2018] EWHC 1872 (Admin) (succeeded in establishing that reasons were required for discharging conditions under delegated authority and that the Council had misconstrued NPPF policy on ground conditions.)
R (Spragge) v Westminster City Council [2018] EWHC 2058 (Admin) (succeeded in establishing that officer time is recoverable in judicial review and costs are payable to a Defendant where and a claim for judicial review is withdrawn following the grant of permission.)
R (Delta Merseyside Ltd) v Knowsley MBC [2018] EWHC 757 (Admin) (successful claim establishing illegality of policy restricting cross-boarder taxi licensing.)
R (KP JR Management Co Ltd) v Richmond Upon Thames LBC [2018] EWHC 84 (Admin) (successfully resisted a judicial review regarding marine development on the basis of the approach to the planning unit and the relevance of policy to material change of use.)
R (Bishop) v Westminster CC [2017] EWHC 3102 (Admin) (successful appearance for Westminster in a case establishing that planning permission should be quashed where a certificate negligently/ fraudulently obtained and the proper approach to consultation. Obtained an order awarding the Defendant its costs from the Interested Party.)
R (Rostron) v Guildford BC [2017] EWHC 3141 (Admin) (judicial review of the approach to setting taxi fairs. Establishes the approach to EU freedom of establishment in this context and its relevance to judicial review on Wednesbury grounds.)
R (Qin) v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis [2017] EWHC 2750 (Admin) (successful judicial review overturning refusal of compensation for closing alleged brothels in Soho. Now the leading case on the approach to compensation for Closure Orders.
R (Shirley) v SoSCLG [2017] EWHC 2306 (Admin) (leading case of approach to Air Quality in planning, Permission to Appeal granted.)
R (Working Title Films) v Westminster CC [2016] EWHC 1855 (Admin) (successfully resisting judicial review of planning permission for large central London development on grounds relating to provision of facilities under s 106.)
R (Dilliner) v Sheffield CC [2016] EWHC 945 (Admin) (high profile judicial review, on behalf of Sheffield Tree Protestors, of Sheffield City Council's / Amey's felling of trees in Sheffield under 'Streets Ahead' PFI contract on grounds of consultation/ requirement for EIA.)
R (Harris) v Broads Authority [2016] EWHC 799 (Admin) (judicial review of decision to 'rebrand' the Broads as the 'Broads National Park'. Considers the 'Stanford Principle' and establishes that a decision to act in a way that is objectively misleading is unlawful.)
R (Lafarge Aggregates Ltd) v SoS Environment [2015] EWHC 2388 (Admin) (meaning of waste recovery, successful on appeal - see R (Tarmac Aggregates Ltd) v SoS Environment [2015] EWCA Civ 1149 above.)
Ware v McAllister [2015] EWHC 3086 (QB) (successfully obtained an injunction restricting publication of journalistic material regarding a developer. The court considered the correct balance between Articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR.)
R (Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd) v Hillingdon LBC [2015] EWHC 2751 (Admin) (upholding grant of planning permission for a supermarket where there was a readily inferable explanation for inconsistent decisions.)
R (Central Bedfordshire Council) v SoS CLG [2015] EWHC 2167 (Admin) (challenge to decision that CBC has failed to satisfy the duty to cooperate. Permission to appeal granted.)

Legal 500

FAQs

Newsletters

Careers

Contact us

Francis Taylor Building