Eatessami v Department of Transport

A statutory time limit for questioning the validity of a planning order may operate as an absolute bar. Where legislation provides a specific procedure and period for challenging an order, the High Court has no general discretion to extend that period or examine the order’s validity outside it. This remains so even if the alleged defect concerns procedural non-compliance or an abuse of power. The statutory scheme reflects the public interest in certainty and finality in relation to planning decisions affecting land.

The claimant challenged a stopping order made by the Secretary of State under the Town and Country Planning Act in respect of Sovereign Street. He alleged, among other matters, that the statutory notice had not been properly displayed and that the order affected access to his property.

The order was made on 24 May 2012. The claim form was dated 6 July 2012, one day outside the six-week period prescribed for an application questioning the order’s validity. The central issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the challenge despite the expiry of that period.

1. Claim dismissed. The court had no jurisdiction to entertain the challenge because it was brought one day outside the six-week period prescribed by section 287(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act.
2. Sections 284 and 287 establish a statutory code governing challenges to the validity of specified orders, including stopping orders made under section 247. Section 284 ordinarily excludes legal proceedings questioning validity, subject to the statutory route provided by section 287.
3. The time limit in section 287(4) was absolute. The court had no discretion to extend it or examine the merits of an otherwise out-of-time challenge, even if a procedural defect could be established.
4. The approach was supported by Smith v East Elloe Rural District Council [1956] AC 736, which the court applied in holding that an apparently valid order remains effective unless challenged through the prescribed statutory procedure and within the applicable time.
5. The court also relied on the public interest in certainty and finality identified in R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex p Kent and Ors [1998] 3 PLR 17.
6. The defendant was awarded £5,750 by way of assessed costs following a broad-brush reduction for proportionality.