Robin Green

> People > Barristers > Robin Green

Robin Green regularly appears at inquiries and in the High Court on behalf of private clients and local authorities. He also appears in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) in property and compensation cases.

Robin is frequently called on to advise on cross-cutting legal problems, as well as on tactical and evidential issues. He takes a commercial and pragmatic approach to litigation.

He has long been ranked in the legal directories as a leading junior in planning and administrative law/local government areas.

Robin is able to accept direct access instructions.

Expertise

Planning and Environment
Robin’s planning practice divides broadly into inquiries, High Court challenges and advisory work. He has extensive experience of a range of developments, including residential, commercial and infrastructure projects. He advises and appears for private sector clients and local planning authorities in cases involving (among other things):
- Green Belt, AONBs and national parks
- Heritage assets
- EIA/SEA/appropriate assessment
- Housing need
- Viability
- Minerals
- Renewable energy
- Enabling development
- Planning obligations
- Tree preservation orders
- Advertisement control
- Compulsory acquisition
- Compensation
- Enforcement (including enforcement notices and injunctions)
- Lawful development certificates
To give a flavour of his practice, the following is a list of some of Robin’s planning and environment cases in the past few years:
- R (Fiske) v Test Valley BC [2023] EWCA 1495 – solar farm development; application for new substation; inconsistent with earlier permission for the solar farm which provided for a different substation; whether inconsistency a mandatory material consideration – 15 December 2023
- Land at Trumans Farm, Manor Lane, Gotherington, Cheltenham – appeal in respect of the development of 45 dwellings on land next to the village of Gotherington – 11 September 2023
- R (Fiske) v Test Valley BC [2023] EWHC 2221 (Admin) – solar farm development; section 73 application to vary conditions; imposition of condition removing substation referred to in description of permitted development; whether lawful to impose such a condition – 6 September 2023
- Berkeley House, 7 Oakhill Road, Sevenoaks, Kent – appeal in respect of the erection of a residential apartment building (69 units) in Sevenoaks town – 3 August 2023
- Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Secretary of State for Defence – permission hearing in judicial review challenge to proposed use of RAF Wethersfield to house asylum seekers – 12-13 July 2023
- Land at Brittains Lane, Sevenoaks, Kent – appeal in respect of 70 new homes, including 50% affordable homes and 10% self-build, on land within the Green Belt and adjacent to an AONB and Conservation Area – 7 July 2023
- Hart District Council v Freeman [2023] EWHC 1246 (KB) – appropriate test for application to vary planning injunction – 26 May 2023
- Maidstone Borough Council v Brazil [2023] EWHC 965 (KB) – proceedings for a planning injunction against an unauthorised caravan site – 30 March 2023
- A12 National Strategic Infrastructure Project – appearing for Maldon District Council at the issue specific hearings on traffic and transport, air quality, cultural heritage and biodiversity – 28 February, 1 March 2023
- East Riding of Yorkshire Council v LGH Hotels Management Ltd [2022] EWHC 2868 (KB) – planning injunction preventing the use of a hotel to house asylum seekers set aside on grounds that insufficient harm shown to justify interim injunction – 11 November 2022
- Land at Kiln Lane, Garsington, Oxfordshire – appeals concerning gypsy and traveller caravan sites in the Green Belt – 3 November 2022
- Hillside Parks Limited v Snowdonia National Park Authority – The Supreme Court has re-affirmed what is known as the Pilkington principle – that where development is carried out on land which is incompatible with an extant planning permission, that permission can no longer be relied on as authorising further development. However, the Supreme Court has clarified that development already carried out in accordance with an extant permission is not rendered unlawful merely because further development under the permission is no longer possible. The Supreme Court also indicated that the Pilkington principle is engaged only where there has been a material departure from the permitted scheme, which is a question of fact and degree – 2 November 2022
- Church Lane Nursery, Church Lane, Headley, Surrey – appeal concerning proposals for up to 13 dwellings in the Green Belt, of which 7 would be affordable and 6 would be market housing. The principal issue revolved around the viability of the proposal as a rural exception site – 8 August 2022
- Lighthouse Farm, Beach Road, St Brides Wentlooge, Newport – enforcement notice appeal involving a dwelling composed of shipping containers. The principal issue was whether there had been concealment of the dwelling sufficient to disapply the time limit on enforcement action – 18 July 2022
- Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Park Authority – Supreme Court hearing examining extent of Pilkington principle – 4 July 2022
- R (Fiske) v Test Valley BC [2022] EWHC 1111 (Admin) – challenge to grant of planning permission for a solar farm electricity substation on the ground that the permission was inconsistent with an earlier permission for the entire solar farm. Held: it was for the developer to resolve any incompatibility and choose which permission to carry out. There was no legal obligation for an authority to have regard to the consequences of incompatibility in deciding the later application – 13 May 202
- Former Broke Hill Golf Course, Sevenoaks Road, Sevenoaks – appeal concerning residential development of up to 800 dwellings, including affordable housing units and self-build plots, retirement care community for up to 180 C2 units, primary school hub with associated sports facilities/outdoor space, sports hub including rugby and hockey pitches with separate car park and club house areas, 2ha of commercial B1 use, local centre including commercial, retail and community facilities in the Green Belt – 31 January 2022
- Land west of Loxwood Road, Alford, Surrey – appeal concerning erection of 99 dwellings (including 30% affordable provision) and associated highways and landscape works on agricultural land – 11 January 2022
- Payne v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2021] EWHC 3334 (Admin) – enforcement notice challenge. Court considered effect of planning enforcement order where only one use forming part of a mix of uses was specified in the order – 25 November 2021.
- Little Sparrows, Sonning Common, Oxfordshire – appeal concerning a continuing care retirement community care village (Use Class C2) of up to 133 units with ancillary communal and care facilities and green space. Specialist provision for older people, landscape impact and exceptional circumstances for major development in an AONB were in issue – 25 June 2021.
- St Johns Road and St Johns Nursery site, Earls Hall Drive, Clacton on Sea – appeal concerning proposals for the demolition of nursery buildings and a dwellinghouse and the erection of 195 residential units and 8 live work units. Landscape impact and highway safety in issue – 7 January 2021.
- Land at A34 Chilton Interchange, Chilton – appeal concerning proposals for the erection of a new roadside service area comprising petrol filling station, retail shop (Class A1), electric car charging points, drive-through unit (Class A3/A5), parking and associated works. Issues included whether the development was major development in an AONB and whether it was supported by national and local policy on service areas – 24 December 2020.
- Sevenoaks District Council v Mustafa [2020] EWCA Crim 1723 – conviction for breach of an enforcement notice overturned as a result of excessive judicial intervention – 3 December 2020.
- R (Zins) v East Suffolk Council [2020] EWHC 2969 (Admin) – challenge to the defendant Council’s grant of planning permission for a controversial residential redevelopment scheme on the grounds (inter alia) that the permission did not fix the affordable housing provision – 6 November 2020.
- Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Park Authority [2020] EWCA Civ 1440 – appeal relating to a declaration that a planning permission granted in 1967 for the construction of 401 dwellings on a site in Aberdyfi could still be built out, notwithstanding the grant of subsequent permissions for development on discrete parts of the site. Now under appeal to the Supreme Court – 3 November 2020.
- R (Easter) v Mid-Suffolk District Council [2020] EWCA Civ 1378 – award of costs against interested party where it actively and unsuccessfully opposed a judicial review challenge to the grant of planning permission – 27 October 2020.
- David Foley v The County Council of the City and County of Cardiff [2020] EWHC 2182 (Admin) – challenge to a compulsory purchase order by the owner of the subject property. Issues included whether the Council had properly had regard to the claimant’s disabilities and complied with its duties under the Equality Act 2010 – 7 August 2020.
- Land off Station Road, Long Melford, Suffolk – Recovered appeal concerning 150 dwellings by the village of Long Melford. Landscape impact, district housing need and local need were in issue – 1 April 2020.
- DAF Trucks Limited, Eastern Bypass, Thame – Planning appeal relating to the residential development (including a care home) of a warehouse and office site. Adequacy of marketing and fall-back were in issue – 27 March 2020.
- Frith Manor Farm, Lingfield Road, East Grinstead – Planning appeal relating to a 101-dwelling scheme close to East Grinstead. Green Belt harm, landscape impact and heritage impact were in issue – 2 March 2020.
- Land at the Elms, Upper High Street, Thame – Planning appeal relating to a ‘housing with care’ development within the grounds of a listed villa in the town of Thame. The nature of the appeal proposals (C2 or C3), heritage impact and the application of affordable housing policy were in issue – 21 October 2019.
- Retirement Villages Development Ltd v South Oxfordshire DC [2020] PAD 2 – Planning appeal relating to an extra care housing scheme outside the village of Lower Shiplake. Spatial strategy, landscape impact, highway safety and the application of affordable housing policy were in issue – 14 October 2019.
- Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Park Authority [2019] EWHC 2587 (QB) – Claim for a declaration that a planning permission granted in 1967 for the construction of 401 dwellings on a site in Aberdyfi could still be built out, notwithstanding the grant of subsequent permissions for development on discrete parts of the site. Now under appeal to the Court of Appeal – 8 October 2019.
- Sevenoaks District Council v Mustafa; Sevenoaks District Council v Kullar – Crown Court prosecutions of the manager and owners of an unauthorised hostel in Swanley, resulting in convictions of all three defendants – 2 August, 5 December 2019.
- R (McLennan) v Medway Council [2019] EWHC 1738 (Admin), [2019] PTSR 2025, [2020] Env LR 5, [2020] JPL 123 – Judicial review challenge of a decision to grant planning permission for a neighbour’s roof extension which would overshadow the claimant’s solar panels. The principal issue was whether the effect of development on private renewable energy equipment was a material planning consideration – 10 July 2019.
- Canterbury CC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; and Hollamby Estates (2005) Ltd [2019] EWHC 1211 (Admin), [2019] JPL 1321 – A challenge to the Secretary of State’s grant of planning permission for 800 dwellings near Herne Bay on the grounds that that (a) there had not been an environmental impact assessment as required by European law and (b) the Secretary of State had been wrong to grant permission in circumstances where funding for a relief road deemed essential for the development was uncertain – 14 May 2019.
Public Law and Judicial Review
Robin has long experience advising public authorities and private individuals on the lawfulness of administrative decisions. He has appeared in numerous judicial reviews and statutory challenges, principally in the fields of planning and highways.

For local authority clients in England and Wales, Robin is often called on to advise on:
- Constitutional provisions
- Executive arrangements
- Agency arrangements
- Officer reports and decision-making
- Councillors’ conduct
- Finance
- Land transactions
- Public procurement
For example, the topics on which Robin has advised local authorities in the past year include public consultation; liability for trees; structures in the highway; traffic regulation orders; the scope of the Aarhus Convention; planning statutory challenges; land transactions; noise abatement notices; community governance reviews; planning obligations; restrictive covenants; and telecommunication equipment.

Robin has also appeared in a number of significant public law and judicial review cases, including (just in the last few years):
- R (Fiske) v Test Valley BC [2023] EWHC 2221 (Admin) the High Court upheld a challenge to the grant of planning permission under section 73 TCPA 1990 on the grounds that one of the conditions imposed conflicted with the description of the permitted development and the local authority had failed to have regard to this. Permission to appeal has been sought.
- Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Secretary of State for Defence (14 July 2023) grant of permission to proceed in a judicial review challenge to the proposed use of RAF Wethersfield to house asylum seekers on grounds relating to environmental impact assessment, permitted development rights under Class Q, and equality impact assessment.
- R (Fiske) v Test Valley BC [2022] EWHC 1111 (Admin) the High Court dismissed a challenge to the defendant council’s grant of planning permission which was incompatible with an earlier permission for the same site.
- R (Upton) v Oxford City Council [2021] EWHC 2663 (Admin) the High Court varied an injunction restraining the interested parties from felling an oak tree, so that they could carry out crown reduction and risk mitigation.
- R (Zins) v East Suffolk Council and another 2020] EWHC 2969 (Admin) the High Court dismissed a challenge to the defendant council’s grant of planning permission for a controversial housing scheme involving its former offices, which left the details of affordable housing provision to be approved later.
- R (Easter) v Mid-Suffolk District Council [2020] EWCA Civ 1378 the Court of Appeal rejected a challenge to an award of costs against an interested party in judicial review proceeding
- R (McLennan) v Medway Council [2019] EWHC 1738 (Admin), [2019] PTSR 2025, [2020] Env LR 5, [2020] JPL 123 – Judicial review challenge of a decision to grant planning permission for a neighbour’s roof extension which would overshadow the claimant’s solar panels. The principal issue was whether the effect of development on private renewable energy equipment was a material consideration.
- Canterbury CC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; and Hollamby Estates (2005) Ltd [2019] EWHC 1211 (Admin), [2019] JPL 1321 – A challenge to the Secretary of State’s grant of planning permission for 800 dwellings near Herne Bay on the grounds that that (a) there had not been an environmental impact assessment as required by European law and (b) the Secretary of State had been wrong to grant permission in circumstances where funding for a relief road deemed essential for the development was uncertain.
- R (Britwell PC) v Slough BC; R (Wexham Court PC) v Slough BC [2019] EWHC 998 (Admin), [2019] PTSR 1904, [2019] ACD 70 – A challenge to a decision of the defendant authority to abolish two parish councils.
- Calor Gas Ltd v Norfolk CC [2019] EWHC 308 (Admin), [2019] LLR 239 – A challenge to the defendant highway authority’s policy on permitting the laying of private undertakers’ apparatus in the highway.
- R (Crematoria Management Ltd) v Welwyn Hatfield BC [2018] EWHC 382 (Admin), [2018] PTSR 1310, [2018] Env LR 26, [2018] JPL 946 – A challenge to the defendant authority’s decision to grant planning permission for a crematorium in the Green Belt.
Robin is well aware of the need for expedition in public law challenges and is used to advising on claims at short notice.
- New recommendations for councillors from Committee on Standards in Public Life05 Feb 2019
- Planning Magazine: The Planning Law Survey 201501 Jan 2018
Property
- Overview
- Cases
Robin regularly advises on property matters, including:
- Covenants (their meaning and effect; enforcement; applications to the Upper Tribunal for their variation or discharge; application of s 203 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016)
- Easements (express, implied or prescriptive; extent; enforcement)
- Leases (commercial and residential; meaning and effect; enforcement of terms)
- Conveyances
- Adverse possession
- Nuisance (statutory and at common)
- Trespass
- Compulsory purchase (acquisition and compensation)
While much of Robin’s advisory work is intended to avoid litigation, sometimes it is inevitable. Robin appears in High Court, county court and Upper Tribunal property cases, acting for public and private sector clients. His property cases include:
- Stuart James Taylor v Watford Borough Council [2022] UKFTT 0070 (PC) – application for first registration based on adverse possession of council land – whether acts relied on by applicant sufficient – whether evidence of acts by previous occupiers sufficient – whether applicant had acknowledged the council’s title – application cancelled.
- Ralph v Ralph [2021] EWCA Civ 1106, [2021] 4 WLR 128 – A transfer deed which conveyed a property into the joint names of a father and son could not be rectified to remove an election that they were to hold the property as tenants in common in equal shares. There was no express agreement as to how they were to hold the beneficial interests in the property and no evidence of any continuing common intention in that regard; they had simply given the matter no thought.
- Abbots Ride Land Limited v Surrey County Council [2019] EWHC 3560 (QB) – A claim for a declaration as to whether a verge providing access to a development site was subject to public rights of way.
- Shepherd Neame Ltd v Guildford BC (Guildford magistrates’ court, 1 July 2019) – Appeal by a pub operator against a noise abatement notice served in respect of amplified music.
- R (Moore) v Secretary of State and Watford BC [2016] EWHC (2736) Admin, [2016] ACD 135 – A challenge to the decision of the Secretary of State to allow Watford BC to appropriate allotments for the purposes of a regeneration scheme.
- Stevens v Ismail [2016] UKUT 43 (LC), [2016] L&TR 21 – An application to the Upper Tribunal to modify a restrictive covenant preventing alterations to two flats.
- Parmar v Barnet LBC [2015] UKUT 510 (LC), [2016] RVR 9 – An application to the Upper Tribunal to determine the compensation payable for the compulsory acquisition of a derelict detached house.
- Wright v Horsham DC [2011] UKUT 319 (LC), [2011] JPL 1618 – An application to the Upper Tribunal for the assessment of compensation payable for subsidence caused by encroaching tree roots from a protected tree.
- Tew v South Northamptonshire Council [2010] UKUT 333 (LC), [2011] RVR 80 – An application to the Upper Tribunal to determine the compensation payable for the compulsory acquisition of a disused pub.
Local Government
For many years Robin has advised numerous local authorities and those affected by their decisions on a range of local government issues. In addition to specific planning matters (for which see Robin’s Planning and Environment page), Robin is regularly called on to advise on vires, governance, internal procedure and conduct issues. He has appeared in numerous judicial reviews and statutory challenges involving local authority decisions. He is also experienced in local authority conduct investigations.

By way of example, in the last year Robin has advised on:
- public consultation;
- liability for trees;
- structures in the highway;
- traffic regulation orders;
- the scope of the Aarhus Convention;
- planning statutory challenges;
- land transactions;
- noise abatement notices;
- community governance reviews;
- planning obligations;
- restrictive covenants affecting local authority land;
- and telecommunication equipment, among other areas.
Robin’s local government cases over the last few years include:
- R (Fiske) v Test Valley BC [2023] EWHC 2221 (Admin) the High Court allowed a challenge to the defendant council’s decision to grant planning permission for a solar farm which included a condition that conflicted with the terms of the permitted development.
- R (Fiske) v Test Valley BC [2022] EWHC 1111 (Admin) the High Court dismissed a challenge to the defendant council’s grant of planning permission which was incompatible with an earlier permission for the same site.
- R (Zins) v East Suffolk Council and another [2020] EWHC 2969 (Admin) the High Court dismissed a challenge to the defendant council’s grant of planning permission for a controversial housing scheme involving its former offices, which left the details of affordable housing provision to be approved later.
- R (Easter) v Mid-Suffolk District Council [2020] EWCA Civ 1378, [2021] 1 WLR 1603 – A challenge to a costs order made against an interested party where the underlying proceedings against the defendant council’s planning decision was quashed by consent.
- Foley v Cardiff City and County Council [2020] EWHC 2182 (Admin) – A challenge to the making of a compulsory purchase order on the grounds that the council had failed to have proper regard to the owner’s disability and Convention rights.
- R (McLennan) v Medway Council [2019] EWHC 1738 (Admin), [2019] PTSR 2025, [2020] Env LR 5, [2020] JPL 123 – A challenge to a decision of the defendant council to grant planning permission for a neighbour’s roof extension which would overshadow the claimant’s solar panels.
- R (Britwell PC) v Slough BC; R (Wexham Court PC) v Slough BC [2019] EWHC 998 (Admin), [2019] PTSR 1904, [2019] ACD 70 – A challenge to a decision of the defendant council to abolish two parish councils.
- Calor Gas Ltd v Norfolk CC [2019] EWHC 308 (Admin), [2019] LLR 239 – A challenge to the defendant highway authority’s policy on permitting the laying of private undertakers’ apparatus in the highway.
- R (Crematoria Management Ltd) v Welwyn Hatfield BC [2018] EWHC 382 (Admin), [2018] PTSR 1310, [2018] Env LR 26, [2018] JPL 946 – A challenge to the defendant council’s decision to grant planning permission for a crematorium in the Green Belt.
- Surrey CC v Windsor & Maidenhead RLBC [2016] EWHC 2901 – A statutory challenge brought by the county council highway authority against a traffic order made by the borough council.
- R (Law) v Essex County Council [2015] EWHC 329 (Admin) – A challenge to the decision of the defendant council to grant planning permission for a primary school.
- R (Carter) v Swansea City and County Council [2015] EWHC 75 (Admin) – A challenge to the decision of the defendant council to grant planning permission for a wind farm.
- R (Lady Hart of Chilton) v Babergh District Council [2014] EWHC 3261 (Admin), [2015] JPL 491 – A challenge to the decision of the defendant council to grant planning permission for two industrial buildings in close proximity to a number of heritage assets.
- R (Stern) v Horsham District Council [2013] EWHC 1460 (Admin), [2013] 3 All ER 798 – A challenge to the decision of the defendant council to issue two enforcement notices.
Robin was one of the contributors to Cornerstone on Councillors’ Conduct.

Robin is very persuasive in his approach to advice and advocacy.
Chambers UK Bar (2024)

Robin is brilliant at breaking down the area of law for the instructing solicitor and client.
Chambers UK Bar (2024)

Robin is very impressive in court: his calm and authoritative approach is very effective and persuasive and the judge listens when he speaks.
Legal 500 (2022)

He has a convincing argument to justify every action taken and an answer to any question posed.
Legal 500 (2022)

About Robin

Directory Quotes
- Planning – “Robin is very persuasive in his approach to advice and advocacy. The clarity of his legal advice is highly valued by those instructing.” “Robin Green is brilliant at breaking down the area of law for the instructing solicitor and client.” Chambers and Partners 2024
- Planning – “He provided detailed and highly complicated advice on sensitive environmental matters and provided helpful support.” – Chambers and Partners 2023
- Planning – “Robin is very calm, authoritative and persuasive.” Chambers and Partners 2022
- Planning – “He is very thorough and timely in the way he does things, as well as being immensely knowledgeable.” Chambers and Partners 2022
- Local Government – “He is professional and supportive with an understanding of the challenges officers face in local government. He is able to grasp the issues of a case quickly and advise accordingly.” Legal 500 2022
- Planning – “Robin is very impressive in court: his calm and authoritative approach is very effective and persuasive and the judge listens when he speaks. He has a convincing argument to justify every action taken and an answer to any question posed. He is never rattled or stumped.” Legal 500 2022
- Planning – “Robin is very helpful and able to turn work around very quickly.” Chambers and Partners 2021
- “Robin brings a balanced and principled approach to his written and oral advocacy. He is tenacious in his oral submissions but within a presentational style that is both moderate and courteous. He has excellent judgment which enables him to craft cross examination and oral submissions in an attractive and orderly manner that immediately engages the attention and sympathy of the court.” “He is professional and supportive with an understanding of the challenges officers face in local government. He is able to grasp the issues of a case quickly and advise accordingly. He inspires confidence in the case and realism where appropriate.” Legal 500 2021
- “Completely unflappable and he is able to pick up any part of planning and deal with it with ease.” “Very efficient and easy to work with.” Chambers and Partners 2020
- “Expert at assisting councils with the full range of matters associated with gypsies.” Legal 500 2020
- “He grasps issues very quickly, identifies key matters and cuts a clear path. He is always very helpful and very good with clients.” “He is very detailed and understands and interprets data very well. He has strength in setting out the issues and dealing with them. His closing statement was sharp, focused and compelling.” Chambers and Partners 2019
- “A very able and calm advocate with great forensic skills.” “Extremely effective.” Legal 500 2019
- “He is a fantastic advocate and is extremely thorough. A pleasure to work with, he is great with planning clients and witnesses.” “A tenacious advocate, offering client-focused advice, who is efficient in his delivery and effective in argument.” Chambers and Partners 2018
- “A methodical researcher, a calm and commanding advocate, and a wise, dependable ally.” “He explains points in a way that clients can understand.” Legal 500 2017
- “Worth his weight in gold. He provides very clear, practical advice, often reducing complex issues to easily understandable summaries. His advocacy is like his approach to providing advice in that it very clearly focuses on the issues at hand.” “He is thorough and painstaking, and he emanates assurance.” Chambers and Partners 2017
- “He is very user-friendly and helpful.” Chambers and Partners 2016
- “Very calm, well-prepared and thorough, and very generous with his time.” Legal 500 2016
- “An extremely impressive advocate.” Legal 500 2015
Services

Robin gives seminars to clients on particular planning and local government issues of interest to them.
Associations
- PEBA
- ALBA
Publications
Notable Cases
Events