In 2008, the national standard application form for planning permission was introduced: see Circular 02/2008. However, a local planning authority (LPA) must always bear in mind that in some instances – although its use is recommended – the standard form is not mandatory. One such instance is an application under Parts 6, 24 or 31 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO) for a determination/approval.
In Murrell v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2010] EWCA Civ 1367; [2010] PLSCS 308, the appellants proposed to erect a cattle shelter on their farm, relying on Class A of Part 6. Accordingly, they applied to the LPA for a determination as to whether its prior approval was required in respect of the siting, design and external appearance of the building. The application, which included a description of the development together with its dimensions and intended materials, was accompanied by a location plan and a cheque for the appropriate fee. It was received by the LPA on 1 December 2008.
The LPA rejected the application as defective, stating that it should have been made on the new standard form and should have also been accompanied by four copies of the proposed elevations and a block plan. The appellants complied and on 31 December 2008, the LPA determined that prior approval was required and simultaneously refused it.
The main issue for the Court of Appeal was whether the LPA’s determination was made more than 28 days from the date of receipt of a valid application, with the consequence that permission for the development accrued on the expiry of the 28-day period and the subsequent refusal of prior approval was of no legal effect. (This was the appellants’ contention.) Put another way, was the LPA entitled to require completion of the new standard form or the submission of further plans before treating the application as valid?
The appeal judges held that permission under the GPDO had accrued on the expiry of the 28-day period. It was clear that, in the instant case, the use of the new standard form was not mandatory, nor were the appellants bound to provide any information beyond that which they had originally supplied. The mistakes made by the LPA in handling the application and the fact that the appellants submitted a new form and further plans did not stop the clock running or otherwise affect the position.
John Martin is a freelance writer
