Moghul v Bradford Metropolitan District Council & Anor

A claim for judicial review must be brought promptly and, in any event, within three months of the decision challenged. The court has discretion to extend that period, but an applicant must provide a sufficient explanation for delay and demonstrate that an extension is justified. Judicial review is generally unsuitable for resolving primary factual disputes, such as whether a notification letter was received. Where a planning officer’s report has addressed the relevant planning considerations, a challenge based on an alleged omission will require an arguable prospect that the omission could have affected the decision. A claim may be refused where the delay is unjustified and the proposed grounds have no sufficient prospect of success.

The claimant sought permission to bring judicial review proceedings against the grant of outline planning permission for a three-storey shopping bazaar opposite her home. She relied on alleged failures concerning planning policy, a listed building, the local development framework, the design of the development, the public interest and the potential effect on her right to light.

The claim was issued on 29 July 2009, more than three months after the planning permission was granted on 8 April 2009. Permission had been refused on paper and the claimant renewed the application orally. The central issues were whether time should be extended and, if so, whether any ground was arguable.

1. Permission refused. The claim was issued outside the period required by Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 54.5. The court declined to exercise its discretion under Part 3.1(2)(a) to extend time.
2. The claimant’s daughter had known since 9 July 2008 that a further planning application existed. She was assisting the claimant and knew of her mother’s difficulties. It was therefore not sufficient to await further notification without checking the application’s progress. The council’s record of posting supported the inference that the neighbour notification letter had arrived, although it might subsequently have gone missing.
3. Judicial review was not suited to determining the primary factual issue of whether the letter had been received. The court’s essential task was to examine the decision-making process.
4. In any event, none of the proposed grounds had a sufficient prospect of success. Although PPG6 did not apply, the planning officer’s report had properly considered the relevant retail policies in the Bradford Unitary Development Plan, the character of the area and design issues.
5. The report had considered the effect of the proposed development on neighbouring houses, including overlooking. Its failure to refer specifically to the claimant’s more distant and apparently higher property was not an arguable basis for quashing the decision. Even if representations had been made, they were unlikely to have affected the outcome.
6. The court declined to advise on possible private-law remedies concerning rights of light and advised the claimant to obtain professional advice before development commenced. The court also stated that it had no power to grant permission to appeal.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): permission was refused on paper by His Honour Judge Kaye QC. On renewal, His Honour Judge Grenfell refused permission after an oral hearing on 22 September 2009.