An application under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (“the Act”) to challenge in the High Court a development plan document, or part of one, must be made “not later than the end of the period of six weeks starting with the relevant date”. (See section 113(4) of the Act.) In such a case, section 113(11)(c) goes on to define “the relevant date” as meaning the date when the development plan document is adopted by the local planning authority, or approved by the secretary of state, as the case may be.
In Hinde v Rugby Borough Council [2011] EWHC 3684 (Admin), the court – applying an approach consistent with the natural meaning of the language used in section 113 – held that the period of six weeks was to be treated as one of 42 days starting on the day of adoption and ending at midnight on the 42nd day. The decision in Barker v Hambleton District Council [2012] EWCA Civ 610 makes it clear that because the six-week period is stipulated by statute, with no power to extend, the period is absolute. (CPR Rule 3.1.2 (a) has no application since the power to extend or shorten time granted by it applies only to “any rule practice direction or court order”.)
The issue for the court in Nottingham City Council v Calverton Parish Council EWHC 503 (Admin) was what is the position – on a proper interpretation of section 113(4) of the Act – when the last day of the six-week period falls on a non-working day. In this case, the six week period ended on a Sunday, when the court office was closed, and the application was not made until the following day. Should section 113(4) be interpreted in such a way that the six week period in such a case ended on the next day when the court office was open for business, or should a strict interpretation be given to it?
While acknowledging that a strict, literalist approach might well be thought to be consistent with the concern to ensure certainty in relation to the validity of such measures, the court declined to apply it in this case. The judge pointed out that challenges of the kind envisaged here are invariably brought by means of a Part 8 claim, and such a claim is started when it is issued. Issuing requires the claim form to be sealed by the court, and that means the involvement of a court officer. He went on to rule that where – as here – the application cannot be made unilaterally, in a case where the court office is closed for business on the last day of the six week period, that period is to be treated as expiring on the next day when court office is open for business.
John Martin is a planning law consultant
