Ben Du Feu

> People > Barristers > Ben Du Feu

Ben Du Feu is a specialist in planning and public law.

He acts for and advises a broad range of public authorities and private clients.

Ben is regularly instructed in his own capacity in planning inquiries and High Court matters, and is often requested to act as junior counsel to senior members of chambers in cases of national significance.

Ben graduated from University College, Durham, with a 1st class honours degree in Law and has a LLM in Environmental Law and Policy from University College London. He was called to the Bar in 2013 as a Lord Diplock scholar at Middle Temple.

Planning and Environment
Ben is ranked as a leading junior for planning in Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners and as one of the top-rated planning juniors by Planning Magazine.

He has a busy planning practice acting in respect of a wide range of planning and highways matters including residential, retail, infrastructure schemes, enforcement work and plan making.

Ben acts for both private clients and public authorities, has regularly represented the UK Government in planning matters, and frequently appears in the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

He is a committee member of the Planning and Environment Bar Association (PEBA).

Some of his recent work is set out below.

Court of Appeal

Successfully acted for the Secretary of State in Frack Free Balcombe Residents’ Association v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2025] EWCA Civ 495. The case concerned a number of issues including whether an inspector deciding an appeal against the refusal of planning permission to carry out exploration for hydrocarbons erred in law by failing to consider the effects of a future development of commercial production. Ben argued ground six in the Court of Appeal. Ben was led by Tom Cosgrove KC.

Successfully acted for the Secretary of State in Gardiner v Hertsmere Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1166. The case concerned a question of statutory interpretation about the exemption from liability to Community Infrastructure Levy (“CIL”) for “self-build” housing development under regulations 54A and 54B of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and whether that exemption is available when planning permission is granted retrospectively for such development, under section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Ben was led by Richard Honey KC.

Successfully acted for Historic England in City & Country Bramshill Limited v SSHCLG [2021] EWCA Civ 320. The case addresses a number of important issues including the correct approach to heritage policies in the NPPF.

Successfully acted for the Appellant in Lochailort v Mendip District Council [2020] EWCA Civ 1259. The Court of Appeal quashed the Council’s decision to approve a neighbourhood plan policy which designated his client’s land as an area of Local Green Space. Ben was led by Richard Ground KC.

High Court

Successfully acted for Durham CC in Durham v Stevenson. A without notice application, and return dates on notice, for an interim injunction pursuant to s.187B of the TCPA 1990. The claim concerns a large site which had been extensively developed to facilitate unauthorised residential occupation by caravans. Injunction granted and maintained at the return date.

Successfully acted for the Secretary of State in Seven Capital (Highgate Hill) Ltd v SSLUHC [2024] EWHC 2383 (Admin). The Claimant sought a statutory review of a planning inspector’s decision to refuse planning permission for a two-year temporary use of the Archway Campus in London for artist studios and exhibition space. The Inspector found the proposal conflicted with housing delivery plans for the site and raised fire safety concerns. The Claimant argued that the Inspector should have considered granting permission for a lesser period, gave inadequate reasons in relation to fire safety issues and had failed to properly consider the CIL implications of the proposed development. Fordham J dismissed the application, finding no arguable grounds with realistic prospects of success.

Successfully acted for the Secretary of State in Redrow Homes Limited v SSLUHC [2024] EWHC 2074 (Admin). A s.288 permission hearing concerning a challenge to a decision to refuse planning permission for 1400 homes in the green belt. The grounds of challenge included misinterpretation of policy, failure to give adequate reasons and procedural unfairness. Permission to proceed with the claim was refused.

Successfully acted for the Secretary of State in Lambeth LBC v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2024] EWHC 1391 (Admin); [2025] JPL 239. This case concerned a planning inspector’s decision to grant a certificate of lawfulness and planning permission for the amalgamation of two flats.

Successfully acted for Reigate and Banstead BC in R (oao Tesco Stores Ltd) v Reigate and Banstead BC [2024] EWHC 2327 (Admin). The case was a judicial review of the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a Lidl supermarket. The claim was brought by Tesco on the basis of concerns about the impact of the proposal on a nearby heritage asset, a Grade II listed War Memorial.

Successfully acted for HMRC in R (oao Newham LBC) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2024] EWHC 2321 (Admin). The case involved a point of statutory interpretation of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (‘CIL Regs’), specifically whether a floating hotel qualifies as a ‘building’ for CIL liability. If the hotel was not a ‘building’, it would not be liable for CIL. Ben was led by Richard Honey KC.

Successfully acted for the Secretary of State in Ross Park Homes Limited v SSHLUHC [2024] EWHC 1334 (Admin). The claimant sought a s.288 statutory review, challenging the Inspector’s decision to refuse a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use for year-round residential use of touring caravans at Ross Park. The Inspector concluded that such use would constitute a material change from the existing lawful use for transient, leisure purposes. Lang J found the Claimant’s grounds unarguable, upholding the Inspector’s reasoning, and refused permission for the review.

Successfully acted for the Secretary of State in Merrills v SSLUHC [2024] EWHC 1219. The High Court considered whether to extend time for service of a sealed claim form in a statutory planning challenge under section 288 of the TPCA 1990. The claimant sought to challenge a planning appeal decision, but failed to serve the sealed claim form within the strict statutory deadline.

Successfully acted for the Secretary of State in Frack Free Balcombe Residents v SSLUHC [2023] EWHC 2548 in a s.288 appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State to grant planning permission for exploration and appraisal of hydrocarbons at a well site in Balcombe, Haywards Heath. Ben was led by Tom Cosgrove KC.

Successfully acted for King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in Webb v LB Bromley [2023] EWHC 2091. This was a judicial review of the decision of London Borough of Bromley to grant his client planning permission for a new endoscopy unit at Princess Royal University Hospital, Orpington. The judicial review concerned an allegation of bias which was rejected by Mr Justice Lane. Ben was led by Richard Ground KC.

Successfully acted for Community Health Partnership Ltd in Arthur v Barnet [2022] EWHC 2933 (Admin). This was a judicial review of the decision of the London Borough of Barnet to grant his client planning permission for 130 units of accommodation for NHS workers on a site adjacent to Finchley Memorial Hospital. Ben was led by Richard Ground KC.

Successfully acted for the Secretary of State in Heronslea (Bushey 4) Ltd v SSHCLG [2022] EWHC 96 (Admin). The case concerned a question of statutory construction of the CIL Regs and the consequences of a failure to submit a commencement notice for the entitlement to social housing relief. Ben was led by Richard Honey KC.

Appeared for the Claimant in R (Stratton) v Enfield BC [2022] EWHC 404 (Admin). A local authority had granted planning permission on the basis of a mistake of fact. The case concerned the court’s exercise of discretion where a claim has become academic. The Claimant was successful in obtaining its costs.

Appeared for the Secretary of State in Stratford on Avon DC v SSLUHC [2022] EWHC 445 (Admin). The case concerned the correct interpretation of policies in the LPA’s development plan.

Appeared for Lochailort Investment Ltd resisting a s.113 challenge to the adoption of Mendip District Council’s Part II Plan in Norton St Philip v Mendip District Council [2022] EWHC 3432. The plan had allocated his client’s site for housing development. Ben was led by James Findlay KC. They also appeared in a related case [2023] EWHC 1776 (Admin).

Acted on behalf of Test Valley Borough Council to obtain an injunction pursuant to s.187B of the TCPA 1990 to secure the demolition of a dwelling which was erected without planning permission.

Provided written submissions on behalf of the Secretary of State in the case of Stonewater (2) Limited v Wealden District Council [2021] EWHC 2750. The submissions concerned a question of statutory construction of the CIL Regs related to claims for social housing relief. The court and other parties agreed with that construction.

Provided written submissions on behalf of the Secretary of State in the case of Gardiner v Hertsmere BC [2021] EWHC 1875. The case concerned a question of statutory interpretation about the exemption from liability to Community Infrastructure Levy (“CIL”) for “self-build” housing development under the CIL Regs. The judgment has since been upheld in the Court of Appeal.

Successfully acted for Historic England in City and Council Bramshill Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2019] EWHC 3437 (Admin). Ben was led by Richard Ground KC. The case addresses a number of important issues including the correct approach to heritage policies in the NPPF.

Acted for Lochailort in R. (on the application of Lochailort Investments Ltd) v Mendip DC [2019] EWHC 2633 (QB). He was led by Richard Ground KC. They successfully obtained interim relief to prevent a local planning authority from holding a referendum on a draft neighbourhood plan whilst Lochailort pursued a challenge to the draft policies concerning local green space.

S.78 Inquiries

Successfully acted for Bristol City Council at a planning inquiry concerning an application for outline planning permission for 4,700 sq.m of commercial floorspace. The inquiry addressed matters including green belt policy, the need for commercial floorspace in Bristol, and the highways impacts of the proposed development.

Acted for South Cambridge District Council in a s.78 appeal concerning their refusal of planning permission for a large urban regeneration project at Cambridge North Station (APP/w0530/w/23/3315611). The proposed development included 5 commercial buildings for office, research and laboratory uses, a multi-storey car park and up to 425 residential units. The main issues included the design, landscape and heritage impacts of the scheme. The appeal was called in by the Secretary of State for determination. Ben led Jack Barber.

Successfully acted for Shenley Parish Council at an inquiry resisting a s.78 appeal in respect of the development of up to 37 dwellings on greenbelt land (APP/N1920/W/22/3311193).

Acted for Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council in a s.78 appeal concerning their refusal of planning permission for a 45MW solar farm (APP/H1705/W/22/3304561). The main issues included the landscape and heritage impacts of the scheme.

Successfully acted for Halstead Parish Council at an inquiry resisting a s.78 appeal in respect of the development of up to 800 dwellings, a primary school and sport facilities on greenbelt land (APP/G2245/W/21/3273188).

Successfully acted for Manor Oak Homes in a s.78 appeal obtaining a grant of planning permission for the erection of up to 150 dwellings on a greenfield site adjacent to an AONB (APP/Q3115/W/21/3272377). Ben was led by Richard Ground KC.

Successfully acted for the Roseacre Awareness Group at the public inquiry into proposed shale gas exploration works at Roseacre Wood. The fracking site was promoted by Cuadrilla. RAG successfully opposed the scheme on the basis of highways safety and suitability objections (APP/Q2371/W/15/3134385).

Successfully acted for Bristol City Council at an inquiry into the proposed expansion of Cribbs Causeway outside of Bristol. Ben was led by Richard Ground KC. The scheme proposed 80,000 sq m of new town centre space. Bristol City Council opposed the scheme on the basis of its retail impacts on the city centre, the availability of a sequentially preferable site and the highways impacts of the scheme (APP/P0119/V/17/3170627).

Enforcement Inquiries

Successfully acted for South Oxfordshire District Council in a s.174 appeal whereby the Inspector upheld an enforcement notice requiring the removal of a caravan and associated works from a site and the restoration of the land (APP/Q3115/C/21/3289658).

Successfully acted for North Norfolk District Council in a s.174 appeal whereby an Inspector upheld an enforcement notice requiring the cessation of a residential use of a building (APP/Y2620/C/19/3241718).

Successfully acted for an appellant in a s.174 appeal against an enforcement notice requiring demolition by obtaining planning permission under ground (a) for a dwelling in the green belt which was built without planning permission (APP/N1025/C/19/3238932).

Successfully acted for a client in an appeal under s.195 of the TCPA 1990 to obtain a certificate of lawful use in respect of the use of a two storey side extension as an independent residential dwelling (APP/T0355/X/21/3269997).

Successfully acted for a client in an appeal under s.195 of the TCPA to obtain a certificate of lawful use in respect of the use of a caravan ancillary to a host dwelling (APP/X0360/X/21/3271863).

Successful acted for the developer in an inquiry concerning a residential development on Kingsland High Street in Hackney. Ben succeeded in obtaining a certificate of lawfulness for his client’s development and the enforcement notice which had been issued by the Council was quashed (APP/U5360/C/19/3241981).

Advisory Work
- Strategic advice to a local planning authority on the progression and adoption of their Local Plan.
- Advice to central government on a number of legislative changes to the planning regime concerning the use class order and GPDO
- Advice to a local planning authority on a definitive map modification order concerning over 100 rights of way. Led by Michael Bedford KC.
- Advice to Historic England in respect of the City of London Local Plan, the proposed Holocaust Memorial at Victoria Tower Gardens in Westminster and in respect of the redevelopment of the Whitechapel Bell Foundry.
Public Law and Judicial Review
Ben acts for and has advised a wide range of clients in matters concerning judicial reviews and statutory challenges.

Ben is fantastic. He is always very well prepared. His advice is careful, measured and insightful and his work is very thorough.
Legal 500 (2022)

He is just an all-round fantastic barrister and one to watch out for.
Legal 500 (2022)

Ben is razor sharp, very calm, a good listener and always knows the case well, so is able to advise the client on which path to steer through to resolution.
Legal 500 (2025)

Ben is extremely calm under pressure. His advocacy is excellent because he is clear and articulate.
Legal 500 (2024)

Ben is able to digest an enormous amount of information and provide clear advice and well-drafted summary grounds of defence in response.
Chambers UK Bar (2024)

He is just brilliant, personable and professional.
Chambers UK Bar (2023)

Ben is fantastic. He is always very well prepared. His advice is careful, measured and insightful and his work is very thorough.
Legal 500 (2022)

He is just an all-round fantastic barrister and one to watch out for.
Legal 500 (2022)

Ben is razor sharp, very calm, a good listener and always knows the case well, so is able to advise the client on which path to steer through to resolution.
Legal 500 (2025)

Ben is extremely calm under pressure. His advocacy is excellent because he is clear and articulate.
Legal 500 (2024)

About Ben

Directory Quotes
- “”Ben impresses with his approach and detailed knowledge of the issues”, “Ben is excellent with clients and his technical knowledge is extremely strong.” Chambers and Partners 2025
- “Ben is razor sharp, very calm, a good listener and always knows the case well, so is able to advise the client on which path to steer through to resolution.” Legal 500 2025
- “Ben is able to digest an enormous amount of information and provide clear advice and well-drafted summary grounds of defence in response.” “He has built up expertise and knowledge in this area at a tremendous pace and has given really clear, persuasive advice.” Chambers and Partners 2024
- “Ben is extremely calm under pressure. His advocacy is excellent because he is clear and articulate. He is also very approachable and easy to get on with generally. He is able to absorb a large amount of complex documentation in a very short amount of time and give excellent written advice. Ben’s paperwork is succinct and comprehensive.” Legal 500 2024
- “Ben Du Feu is fast becoming a favourite of his instructing solicitors. He regularly acts for local authorities and developers on a broad spectrum of planning matters. He is a member of the Attorney General’s C Panel of Junior Counsel.” Strengths: “Ben is extremely knowledgeable and eloquent.” “He is very impressive. He is also extremely calm, measured and very approachable to deal with.” “He is just brilliant, personable and professional.” “He is hard-working and delivers quality work.” Chambers and Partners 2023
- “Ben is a committed, talented and impressive barrister. He is an impressive advocate who is incisive, clear, and well-rounded in his legal advice. His pleadings get straight to the point and argue the case persuasively and coherently. He is a pleasure to work with and has a professional and disciplined attitude.” Legal 500 2023
- “He is extremely well prepared and writes incredibly well.” “Ben is a strong and focused advocate.” Chambers and Partners 2022
- “Ben is fantastic. He is always very well prepared. His advice is careful, measured and insightful and his work is very thorough. He is also very receptive to ideas. He is just an all-round fantastic barrister and one to watch out for.” Legal 500 2022
- “Ben put in an impressive performance. He demonstrated a complete mastery of his brief, was extremely thorough, cross-examined with skill and persistence and produced detailed and well argued closing submissions. Ben struck me as a mature performer for one still relatively junior.” Legal 500 2021
Associations
- PEBA
- UKELA
Publications
- Case Law Update13 Jan 2025
- Interpreting planning policy: a judicial plea for simplicity and an end to excessive legalism that is likely to fall on deaf ears.01 May 2019
Notable Cases
Events