David’s work covers a broad range of areas and developments including heritage, employment, retail, residential and leisure proposals, judicial review/statutory challenges. He is regularly instructed by private companies, planning authorities, public bodies, developers and interest groups throughout the country. David is recognised as providing a comprehensive approach to litigation and tactics ensuring that his clients have the best possible chance to achieve the outcome that they seek.
He has advised clients on all aspects of planning law and public law for more than 20 years and is regularly involved in major public inquiries addressing issues of housing, landscape and visual issues, heritage, retail development, gypsies and travellers and employment land use.
He is a go-to barrister in appeals relating to large housing developments and has recently been involved in appeals relating to the Grade 1 listed Wymondham Abbey in Norfolk, the listed water tower at the Bath Road Reservoir, the redevelopment of the Ford County Cricket Ground, Chelmsford and the redevelopment of the Llanelli RFC ground.
He is consistently in the Court of Appeal in planning and public law matters on cases of wider public interest such as the meaning of the term ‘vulnerable’ in the Housing Act 1996 and whether proportionality is a question for the courts should a local authority decide to take direct action to clear a site.
For many years he has been consistently listed in the legal directories of leading barristers where clients have indicated that “in court, he is unflappable, and outside of it he has the personal touch” (Chambers and Partners 2018), he is “a fantastic practitioner, who is utterly unflappable and always happy to act as a sounding board” (Legal 500 2017) and that “he will always give a practical answer and show you the way forward” (Chambers and Partners 2017).
Expertise
- Planning and Environment
David is an extremely experienced planning lawyer with tactical knowledge of planning law.
His planning work centres around advising clients in preparation for, and appearing at public inquiries and in the higher courts. He advises clients on all aspects of planning law. He has objected to large scale housing and retail schemes, heritage proposals and other major projects.
David is highly sought after for his inquiry work addressing when development should be termed sustainable in relation to a range of planning issues, including in particular the provision of housing, heritage and landscape and visual impacts.
He has prevented development which would have impacted upon the setting of the Grade 1 listed Wymondham Abbey in Norfolk and acted for Reading Council in a series of inquiries protecting designated and non-designated assets from harmful development, including the listed water tower at the Bath Road Reservoir.
In recent years, he has appeared in a string of inquiries in which he acted for Horsham District Council preventing development which would have impacted on significant heritage assets at Melton Drive, Partridge Green and Henfield. Last year David prevented development within the setting of the listed church at Great Bentley, acting for Tendring District Council in a group of connected appeals both at inquiry and ensuring that permission was not given to appeal to the High Court.
David is also known for taking on and winning difficult cases relating to housing land supply. For example he acted for Horsham in the Stonegate Nurseries inquiry which established that Horsham has a 5 year housing land supply, the Colden Common inquiry for Winchester which established that the Liverpool method could be used to calculate its housing land supply and the Great Bentley appeal establishing that Tendring had a 5 year supply of housing principally because of its large unattributed population change.
David established in the Court of Appeal that proportionality is not for the Court on a local authority’s decision to take direct action to clear land (Eastwood v The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead [2016] EWCA Civ 437) and is frequently called upon by clients to advise and represent them at inquiry and in Court on gypsy and traveller incursions.
He has established that timing is of particular importance when taking action in the courts to bring unlawful occupation of land to an end (Basingstoke and Deane BC v Thompson [2018] EWHC 0011 (QB) and Basingstoke and Deane BC v Eastwood and MMT [2018] EWHC 179 (QB)).
David has also been instructed extensively by the Environment Agency and the Environment Agency Wales on a number of significant inquiries relating to flooding issues, and has acted for Chelmsford Borough Council in the inquiry into the redevelopment of the Ford County Ground, Chelmsford (2010) in which permission was granted in the face of the Environment Agency’s objection.
There are few areas in the planning field in which David has not acted over the last 20 years, having appeared at inquiries on as diverse areas as crematoria, air pollution and traffic. Last year David acted for Babergh at an inquiry concerning housing development in the conservation village of Boxford which established that a significantly harmful effect on highway safety amounted to an unacceptable impact for which paragraph 109 of the NPPF requires the refusal of permission.
- Gypsy and traveller site not permitted in an SSSI/ancient woodland and valued landscape09 Aug 2024
- The importance of time depth in a valued landscape, the rural setting of listed buildings and developing in accordance with an adopted spatial strategy23 Jan 2024
- Gypsy and traveller site not permitted in deeply rural valued landscape24 Aug 2023
- Planning condition enforceable in spite of PINS letter asserting it was “erroneous”01 Feb 2023
- The importance of sustainable development when it comes to gypsy and traveller sites01 Sep 2022
- The importance of plan led development and road safety15 Jun 2021
- Safety First – Highway authority criticised in 350-dwelling refusal11 Nov 2019
- Highly vulnerable development in the functional flood plain not justified25 Oct 2019
- Economic benefits of housing in Long Stratton not exceptional02 Sep 2019
- To delay restoration of land pending the outcome of a planning inquiry would frustrate the purpose of an injunction22 Feb 2019
- Conservation village of Boxford protected from further housing development06 Nov 2018
- Historic village of Great Bentley protected from further housing development05 Jun 2018
- Crematorium not sustainable development01 Jan 2018
- Chiltern District Council’s Green Belt Policy with regard to agricultural buildings is consistent with the NPPF01 Jan 2018
- Proportionality is not for the Court on an application for judicial review of a local planning authority’s decision to take direct action01 Jan 2018
- Deliberate concealment of a breach of planning control by the design of building01 Jan 2018
- Important Decision For Design Policies Of The NPPF And NPPG01 Jan 2018
- Breach Of Section 66 Planning (Listed Buildings And Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Not A Trump Card Where There Is A Significant Housing Shortfall01 Jan 2018
- Land To The North Of Melton Drive, Storrington, Pulborough, West Sussex01 Jan 2018
- Neighbourhood Plan Quashed – Boundaries of the ‘Soft Touch’ Approach01 Jan 2018
- The Secretary of State confirms that Horsham District Council is now able to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply01 Jan 2018
- Important Grade II* Listed Building protected from urban encroachment01 Jan 2018
- Occupiers of the unauthorised traveller site at Shurlock Road, Waltham St Lawrence have left the land voluntarily01 Jan 2018
- Enforcement action upheld on appeal in respect of two unsuitable locations for gypsy sites01 Jan 2018
- When the Liverpool approach “should be used” to calculate 5 year housing land supply01 Jan 2018
- Deliberate concealment of a breach of planning control by verbal responses to questions01 Jan 2018
- Timing confirmed as critical when obtaining an injunction. Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council v Eastwood and MMT01 Jan 2018
- Timing is everything when obtaining an injunction preventing gypsies occupying land01 Jan 2018
- Housing
David is often the first choice advocate for his work under the Housing Act 1996. He has worked for a wide range of local authorities throughout the country and has achieved successful outcomes in many of the leading cases.
These cases include a series of Court of Appeal decisions in which he represented the London Borough of Enfield addressing when someone can be considered intentionally homeless:
- (Godson v the London Borough of Enfield [2019] EWCA Civ 486
- Enfield v Najim [2015] EWCA Civ 319
- Kruja v Enfield [2004] EWCA Civ 1769)
Also, in the field of intentional homelessness he represented Wandsworth LBC in Adel William v Wandsworth [2006] EWCA Civ 535 C.A. This case is often cited along with Bubb v Wandsworth [2011] EWCA Civ 1285 C.A (in which David also represented Wandsworth) as confirming that fact-finding under the 1996 Housing Act remains a matter for the decision-maker rather than the court.
Recently David has established in Court what is meant by “significantly more vulnerable” when a local authority determines whether someone has a priority need for housing (Panayiotou v Waltham Forest LBC [2018] 2 W.L.R. 1439) and how medical evidence should be treated on a statutory appeal (Wandsworth v Allison [2008] EWCA Civ 354).
He represented the London Borough of Croydon, in the second of four linked appeals dealing with “Zambrano carers” (Sanneh v SSWP [2015] EWCA Civ 49) in which it was determined that being a “Zambrano carer” does not give an entitlement to social assistance on the same basis as an EU citizen lawfully resident here.
He has established the correct route of appeal against an award of costs where an appeal is withdrawn by consent (Handley v Lake Jackson Solicitors [2016] EWCA Civ 465 [2016] 1 WLR 3138 a series of conjoined cases in which he acted for Croydon).
Other notable cases include establishing that occupation in a women’s refuge could be of choice (Wandsworth v NJ [2013] EWCA Civ. 1373), cases on the operation of the homelessness review regulations (Ibrahim v Wandsworth LBC [2013] EWCA Civ. 20 and El Goure v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2012] EWCA Civ 670) and whether accommodation provided to the homeless is suitable (Watson LBC v Wandsworth [2010] EWCA Civ 1558) amongst others.
- The importance of plan led development and road safety15 Jun 2021
- Court of Appeal decides on power to move a homeless applicant25 Mar 2019
- Historic village of Great Bentley protected from further housing development05 Jun 2018
- Court of Appeal gives guidance on destination of County Court “costs only” appeals01 Jan 2018
- Deliberate concealment of a breach of planning control by the design of building01 Jan 2018
- Cornerstone Success In London Borough Of Croydon “Zambrano Carers” Appeal01 Jan 2018
- Siveter v Wandsworth LBC [2012] (CA) H.L.R. 2601 Jan 2018
- Settling Public Law Claims: A Victory for Common Sense01 Jan 2018
- When is harm “Significant”?01 Jan 2018
- Magistrates send out a message on fire safety01 Jan 2018
- Chaoui El Goure V Royal Borough Of Kensington And Chelsea [2012] EWCA Civ 670 CA01 Jan 2018
- Bubb V Wandsworth LBC [2011] EWCA Civ 128501 Jan 2018
- Dragic V Wandsworth [2011]01 Jan 2018
- Falis Ibrahim v London Borough of Wandsworth [2013] EWCA Civ. 2001 Jan 2018
- Cornerstone Success In London Borough Of Enfield Housing Act Appeal01 Jan 2018
- London Borough Of Wandsworth V NJ [2013] EWCA Civ. 137301 Jan 2018
- Watson V The London Borough Of Wandsworth [2010] B5/2009/2427 12/10/10 (Mummery, Etherton And Sullivan LJJ)01 Jan 2018
- Guidance on sentencing for breaches of HMO Regulations on matters including fire safety01 Jan 2018
- What Does “Significantly” Mean?01 Jan 2018
About David
- Directory Quotes
- Social Housing – “Produces excellent written work and is very good at understanding the issues and presenting good skeleton arguments.” Chambers and Partners 2023
- Social Housing – “David Lintott is known particularly for his expertise in homelessness matters, he regularly makes successful presentations before the Court of Appeal. His broad client base includes a number of local authorities. Lintott also shows strength in possession proceedings and anti-social behaviour order applications. Strengths: “He is much liked for his approachable and friendly manner; teamed with his high level of knowledge it makes David a first choice for counsel.” Chambers and Partners 2022
- Social Housing – “My go-to barrister for homelessness cases. He cuts straight to the issues and untangles them with ease and has expert knowledge of homelessness, with brilliantly written arguments.” Chambers and Partners 2021
- “Very astute, knowledgeable and dependable. His level of experience and application of the law is exemplary, as are his customer service skills. His delivery and presentation before the bench on litigation is of the highest quality. His advice is always easy to comprehend and rational.” Legal 500 2021
- “An absolute star. I have never lost a case with David on board. He is calm and unflappable, and kind in his stance whether this be at court or in inquiries and particularly in any cross-examination, so he tends to get more out the witness than they might otherwise give, or be more fuller in their answers than is helpful to their own case.” Legal 500 2021
- “He is very astute, knowledgeable and dependable. His level of experience and application of the law are exemplary.” “He has incredibly good client care skills.” “He is very good on his feet.” Chambers and Partners 2020
- “He has a particular strength in homelessness litigation, where he has appeared in a number of leading cases at the Court of Appeal.” Legal 500 2020
- “A fantastic and sensible lawyer.” “He is much liked by clients due to his approachable and friendly manner and high level of knowledge.” Chambers and Partners 2019
- “Approachable, friendly and vastly knowledgeable.” Legal 500 2018
- “He produces very detailed and persuasive written opinions.” “In court, he is unflappable, and outside of it he has the personal touch.” Chambers and Partners 2018
- “A fantastic practitioner, who is utterly unflappable and always happy to act as a sounding board.” Legal 500 2017
- “He will always give a practical answer and show you the way forward.” Chambers and Partners 2017
- “Extremely articulate and down to earth.” Legal 500 2016
- “He has a wonderfully approachable nature, and can be asked any query. His homelessness work is of particular note.” Chambers and Partners 2016
- Associations
Planning and Environment Bar Association (PEBA)
- Publications
- Notable Cases
- Gypsy and traveller site not permitted in an SSSI/ancient woodland and valued landscape09 Aug 2024
- The importance of time depth in a valued landscape, the rural setting of listed buildings and developing in accordance with an adopted spatial strategy23 Jan 2024
- Planning condition enforceable in spite of PINS letter asserting it was “erroneous”01 Feb 2023
- The importance of plan led development and road safety15 Jun 2021
- Highly vulnerable development in the functional flood plain not justified25 Oct 2019
