The town and country planning legislation specifies certain time periods within which local planning authorities are precluded from determining a planning application, to allow, for example, representations to be submitted by members of the public or statutory consultees.
In R (on the application of Wembley Field Ltd) v Brent London Borough Council [2005] PLSCS 216, the planning application was approved prior to the expiration of the consultation period. The case concerned a redevelopment of a school site for residential and commercial use. The application had been subject to amendment and an environmental statement had been provided.
The council requested further information under regulation 19(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. In February they invited representations in respect of the further information; such representations to be made within 21 days. That period expired at 11:59 pm on 3 March 2005. The planning committee met on 3 March at 7.59 pm and approved the application.
A local residents’ group applied to quash the planning permission arguing that it was invalid, because it had been determined prior to the expiry of the consultation period.
The court held that the purpose of the regulation was to provide an opportunity for representations to be made and in this instance the purpose had been fulfilled. The decision to grant planning permission had been taken after working hours on the last day of the 21-day period, and as there was no evidence of prejudice the court did not exercise its discretion to quash the planning permission.
Although in this case, failure to comply strictly with the requirements of the regulations was not fatal, there was always the risk that the application to the court could have succeeded. In this particular instance the later expiry of the consultation period was academic, in the sense that both the expiry of that period and the timing of the decision to grant planning permission fell when the working day had concluded and it was clear that no further representations would be received. Had the difference been a matter of days or even 12 hours, the position might have been different.
This must be a risky approach for any council to adopt. It is far better to leave an application until the next committee meeting when the consultation period will have long expired and the risk of a challenge on the issue becomes minimal.
Gill Castorina is an associate at Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker (Europe) LLP
The town and country planning legislation specifies certain time periods within which local planning authorities are precluded from determining a planning application, to allow, for example, representations to be submitted by members of the public or statutory consultees.
In R (on the application of Wembley Field Ltd) v Brent London Borough Council [2005] PLSCS 216, the planning application was approved prior to the expiration of the consultation period. The case concerned a redevelopment of a school site for residential and commercial use. The application had been subject to amendment and an environmental statement had been provided.
The council requested further information under regulation 19(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. In February they invited representations in respect of the further information; such representations to be made within 21 days. That period expired at 11:59 pm on 3 March 2005. The planning committee met on 3 March at 7.59 pm and approved the application.
A local residents’ group applied to quash the planning permission arguing that it was invalid, because it had been determined prior to the expiry of the consultation period.
The court held that the purpose of the regulation was to provide an opportunity for representations to be made and in this instance the purpose had been fulfilled. The decision to grant planning permission had been taken after working hours on the last day of the 21-day period, and as there was no evidence of prejudice the court did not exercise its discretion to quash the planning permission.
Although in this case, failure to comply strictly with the requirements of the regulations was not fatal, there was always the risk that the application to the court could have succeeded. In this particular instance the later expiry of the consultation period was academic, in the sense that both the expiry of that period and the timing of the decision to grant planning permission fell when the working day had concluded and it was clear that no further representations would be received. Had the difference been a matter of days or even 12 hours, the position might have been different.
This must be a risky approach for any council to adopt. It is far better to leave an application until the next committee meeting when the consultation period will have long expired and the risk of a challenge on the issue becomes minimal.
Gill Castorina is an associate at
