CPR 54.5(1) requires that where an application for judicial review is made, the claim form must be filed promptly and in any event not later than three months after the grounds to make the claim first arose. However, this requirement is modified where the grounds to make the claim arose after 1 July 2013, and the application relates to a decision made by the Secretary of State or a local planning authority (“LPA”) under “the planning Acts”. In such circumstances, CPR 54.5(4) and (5) merely require the claim form to be filed not later than six weeks after the grounds to make the claim first arose. (The requirement for promptness is disapplied.) The expression “the planning Acts” is given the same meaning as in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”).
It is clear, therefore, that in what might loosely be referred to as “planning cases” issues relating to promptness in this context will in due course not arise. However, promptness may still be an issue in what might equally loosely be described as “planning-related cases”, as the facts of R (on the application of Powell) v Brighton Marina Company Ltd [2014] EWHC 2136 (Admin) demonstrate.
Brighton Marina was originally developed under the Brighton Marine Act 1968 (“the 1968 Act”), but post-completion projects were constructed pursuant to planning permissions granted under section 73 of the 1990 Act by the LPA. Then, on 13 December 2013, the owner was granted consent for further works once more under the 1968 Act. The claimant applied to quash that order, and the question arose whether his claim was brought out of time. It was filed on the final day of the period of three months commencing on the date of the making of the order. The court held that it was.
The decision under challenge, being made under a local Act of Parliament, was not one made under “the planning Acts”. Accordingly, CPR 54.5(4) and (5) did not apply, and there was a requirement to act promptly. While Directive 2011/92/EU had been engaged by earlier development projects, and an environmental impact assessment had been carried out, the present claim related entirely to a domestic statute. Therefore, the principle enunciated by the CJEU in Uniplex (United Kingdom) Ltd v NHS Business Services Authority Case C-406/08; PTSR 1377 did not remove the requirement to act promptly. On the facts, the claim had not been brought with appropriate promptness.
John Martin
