In Gluck v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2020] EWHC 161, the High Court has reversed the effect of the judgment in R (Warren Farms (Wokingham) Ltd) v Wokingham Borough Council [2019] EWHC 2007 (Admin); [2019] PLSCS 168 and held that the 56-day period for the determination of a prior approval application relating to permitted development under any class in Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (GPDO) can be extended by written agreement.
On the facts, the claimant proposed to change the use of two buildings from office to residential under Class O of the GDPO. They allowed the local planning authority (LPA) 56 days to respond, with a deadline of 1 May. Four days before the deadline, the claimant wrote to the LPA and allowed an extension to 12 May. The claimant denied that any specific extension of time had been agreed and appealed the LPA’s refusal of prior approval. The claimant argued it could proceed with the development because the application had passed the determination date of 1 May without decision and a determination date is incapable of being extended.
The High Court confirmed that the parties had extended the deadline, affirming the assumed position prior to Warren Farm. Schedule 2 prescribes time limits in which the LPA must make its determination. In the absence of a prescribed time limit, Article 7 of the GDPO provides that determination should be made within eight weeks of the LPA receiving the application, or longer if agreed in writing by both parties. In Warren Farm, the court’s reading of Article 7 was that the parties may only agree to vary a deadline not already prescribed in Schedule 2. The High Court concluded this was not the intention of Article 7 and the inclusion of Schedule 2 within the article demonstrates that the provisions for agreeing an extension apply.
As to formalities, the court accepted that an agreement made via e-mail does qualify as being in writing.
This is an important decision in bringing clarity to Article 7 and the extension of deadlines in the LPA’s determination of applications. In circumstances of a complex application and where the LPA is unlikely to meet the deadline, it may be more inclined to reject than let the deadline lapse, and if an extension was not possible this would leave an applicant with a time consuming appeal as its only source of redress.
Claire Petricca-Riding is partner and national head of planning and environmental law at Irwin Mitchell LLP
