In the “exceptional and indeed unique” case of R (on the application of Croyde Area Residents Association) v North Devon DC [2021] EWHC 646; [2021] PLSCS 59, the High Court quashed a planning permission granted in 2014, in a challenge brought six years outside the six-week judicial review challenge period.
In October 2013, the interested party (being the operator of Ruda Holiday Park) applied for planning permission to extend its opening hours. North Devon District Council granted planning permission, subject to four conditions. The second condition required the development to be carried out in accordance with site location plan 6800-LP; this plan mistakenly included land not used for camping or caravans, as well as land not owned by the interested party.
Roughly 22ha of land within the area of outstanding natural beauty was included in the plan, which had never had permission for caravans to be stationed (including a field known as the service field). After the interested party unsuccessfully tried to obtain planning permission in 2016 for additional caravans to be stationed on the service field, they applied for a lawful development certificate on the basis that the 2014 permission permitted the use of the entire red line area on plan 6800-LP for the stationing of caravans. The LDC was granted on appeal.
The claimant’s four grounds of challenge were not disputed by the council or the interested party, and the court found in favour of all four grounds. The issues in the case were: (1) whether the claim was statute barred under section 284 of the Town Country Planning Act 1990; and (2) whether, if not statute barred, an extension of time should be granted. The interested party and the council both accepted that the planning permission was unlawful, but the interested party argued that the permission should not be quashed as it was statute barred.
The court held that the claim was not statute barred; while the effect of section 284 of the Act was that the lawfulness of the LDC is conclusively presumed unless there is a material change, and therefore in the majority of cases the existence of the LDC will be an overwhelming reason not to quash the planning permission. This was considered to be a highly unusual case. The court also held that an extension should be granted; the impugned part of the permission had not been implemented and the delays in bringing the challenge were reasonably justifiable. The overriding factor in granting an extension was the harm that would flow from upholding the planning permission to the area of outstanding natural beauty.
The case confirms that judicial review challenges can be brought well outside of the six-week challenge period where there is a good reason for the delay and a clear error that needs addressing.
Megan Forbes is a solicitor in the planning team at Irwin Mitchell
