Farnham Town Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing & Communities & Ors

3 October 2024

[2024] EWHC 2458 (Admin)

High Court

A town council sued because a planning decision let a developer build houses near a protected area. The court ruled that the council missed the deadline to officially file their complaint and so the case was dismissed. Even if the council hadn’t missed the deadline, the court found the planning decision was properly made.

Key Facts

•Farnham Town Council challenged a planning inspector's decision granting Wates Developments planning permission for 146 dwellings.
•The development site partially falls within a proposed extension to an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
•The claim was filed within the statutory 6-week time limit, but service was late.
•The Council decided not to challenge the decision.
•The Claimant argued the Inspector failed to consider a material consideration (Neighbourhood Plan policy FNP10(c)) and failed to give adequate reasons.
•The defendants argued the court lacked the power to extend time for service, and even if it did, it shouldn't.

Legal Principles

Statutory challenges under section 288 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 must be commenced and served within 6 weeks.

Section 288(4B) of the 1990 Act, Part 54 and Practice Direction 54D of the Civil Procedure Rules.

The court may extend time for compliance with rules, but this power must be exercised considering the overriding objective of the CPR.

CPR 3.1(2)(a), Corus UK Ltd v Erewash Borough Council [2006] EWCA Civ 1175, R (on the application of the Good Law Project) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWCA Civ 355.

In applications to extend time for service after a statutory deadline, the principles of CPR 7.6 should be applied by analogy, even if it doesn’t strictly apply.

Good Law [2022] EWCA Civ 355, Halton Borough Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities [2023] EWHC 293 (Admin), Telford and Wrekin Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities [2023] EWHC 2439 (Admin), Aurora Properties (UK) Limited v Welwyn Hatfield Borough and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities [2024] EWHC 1213 (Admin).

Planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, City of Edinburgh Council v Secretary of State for Scotland [1997] 1 WLR 1447.

Reasons for planning decisions must be intelligible and adequate to understand the decision-making process.

Bloor Homes East Midlands Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWHC 754 (Admin), South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953.

Outcomes

Claim dismissed due to late service.

The court held it lacked power to extend time for service, as the relevant CPR provisions, as amended, established a strict six-week time limit for both issuing and serving claims. Even if it had the power, the court would not have exercised its discretion in favour of the claimant.

Substantive grounds of challenge dismissed.

The Inspector correctly identified a breach of policy FNP10. The specific focus on paragraph (c) was not necessary given that other criteria were also breached, rendering the development contrary to the plan. The Inspector’s balancing exercise was rational and lawful.

Farnham Town Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing & Communities & Ors

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

Halton Borough Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

ETM Contractors Limited, R (on the application of) v Bristol City Council

Suzanne Merrills, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

Elizabeth Soilleux v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities

Home Farm Land Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor