A further issue arose in R (on the application of English) v
The local planning authority had granted planning permission for the residential development on 24 June 2010. The proceedings were issued on 26 August 2010, despite the fact that counsel had drafted the relevant documents some five weeks earlier. The reason given by the claimant for the delay was that he wanted to obtain after-the-event insurance to protect himself against his potential costs liability, and he could do this only after the documents had been drafted.
The judge did not consider that this reason had force. He accepted that the claimant was entitled to obtain such insurance, but as a man of significant wealth the claimant did not need to do so, and, therefore, this was not a valid reason for delaying the issue of proceedings. In the judge’s view, the claim had not been filed in accordance with CPR 54.5, namely “promptly and in any event not later than three months after the grounds to make the claim first arose”.
These are some of the principles the judge extracted from decided cases:
1. CPR 54.5 does not mean that the claimant has three months in which to file his claim form.
2. He must do so promptly, and “promptness” depends on the facts of the case.
3. The importance of acting promptly applies with particular force in challenges to the grant of planning permission.
4. There is no “six weeks rule”, as in the case of section 288 challenges to ministerial decisions.
5. However, that rule is not wholly irrelevant to the decision of what constitutes prompt for the purpose of CPR 54.5.
The courts clearly recognise that once a planning permission has been granted, a developer is entitled to carry out the development. Moreover, since there are time limits on the validity of a planning permission, he will normally want to implement it without delay.
John Martin is a freelance writer
