Krystyna Knight, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Harrow
[2023] EWHC 678 (Admin)
Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring, R (on the application of) v The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
29 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 440 (Admin)
High Court
A homeowner challenged the council's approval of a construction plan after the building permit's deadline had passed and work had started. The court said even if the council *could* have refused the plan, they weren't wrong to approve it, and the homeowner didn't show it would've changed anything otherwise. The challenge failed.
Key Facts
- •Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring challenged the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea's approval of a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP).
- •The CTMP approval was granted after the planning permission's three-year time limit had expired, and minor works had already commenced on site.
- •The challenge centered on whether the council had a discretion to refuse to determine the CTMP application given the expired time limit.
- •Prior permission for judicial review was refused twice before being granted on appeal.
Legal Principles
Principles for challenges based on criticism of an officer's report to a planning committee.
Mansell v. Tonbridge and Malling BC [2017] EWCA Civ 1314
Article 27 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (DMPO) regarding applications for consent, agreement or approval required by a planning condition.
Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015
The 'Whitley principle': a planning permission is controlled by its conditions; operations contravening conditions cannot be considered commencing the authorised development.
Whitley and Sons v. Secretary of State for Wales (1992) 64 P.& C. R. 296
Exception to the Whitley principle: Approval obtained after a deadline is acceptable if the application was made before the deadline, enforcement is impossible, or approval precedes enforcement.
Whitley and Sons v. Secretary of State for Wales (1992) 64 P.& C. R. 296
Continuing obligation of local planning authorities to consider planning applications, even after the determination period expires.
Bovis Homes (Scotland) Limited v. Inverclyde District Council (1982) S.L.T. 473; R (Billings) v. First Secretary of State [2005] EWHC 2274 (Admin); R (on the application of GOESA Limited) v. Eastleigh BC [2022] EWHC 1221 (Admin)
Material considerations in planning decisions; not obligated to consider every conceivable consideration, or those not raised by parties.
R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd.) v. Heathrow Airport [2020] UKSC 52; R (on the application of AB) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 383
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The officer's report and oral advice did not materially mislead the committee; the discretion to refuse determination was not an obviously material consideration; the council was not obligated to seek alternatives.
Similar Cases
Farnham Town Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing & Communities & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2458 (Admin)
Sarah Moakes v Canterbury City Council
[2024] EWHC 1272 (Admin)
Timothy James House & Anor v Waverley Borough Council & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3011 (Admin)
Elizabeth Soilleux v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities
[2023] EWHC 204 (Admin)