Telford and Wrekin Council v Secretary Of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor

For a planning statutory review, the claim form must be both filed and served within the statutory six-week period. Practice Direction 54D is a complete code on filing and service, and CPR 54.7 does not extend that period where the court issues the claim form late.

An extension under CPR 3.1(2)(a) is governed by CPR 7.6(3). The claimant must have taken all reasonable steps to comply within the six-week period and must have applied promptly. Filing near the deadline without alerting or chasing the court may fail those requirements.

The claimant challenged, under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Secretary of State’s grant of planning permission for a solar farm. The claim form was filed within six weeks of the decision but was issued and served after that period.

The Secretary of State sought a declaration that the court had no jurisdiction. The claimant argued that CPR 54.7 should apply where timely service was impossible because the court had not issued the claim form in time. Alternatively, it sought an extension of time. The issues were whether service was timely and, if not, whether an extension could be granted.

1. The claim was out of time. Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires an application for leave to be made within six weeks. Practice Direction 54D, para 4.11, requires the claim form to be served within that same period. Read with para 4.2, the scheme requires both filing and service within six weeks.
2. Practice Direction 54D is a complete code. Its language is clear and must be interpreted against the importance of expedition in planning challenges. CPR 54.7 does not create an exception for a planning statutory review where the claim form was issued after the six-week period.
3. The extension principles were those in CPR 7.6(3). Although CPR 7.6 directly concerns Part 7 claims, its principles govern the exercise of the power in CPR 3.1(2)(a) for section 288 claims. The claimant had to show that it took all reasonable steps to comply with Practice Direction 54D during the six-week period and acted promptly in applying.
4. The claimant failed both preconditions. It filed on 4 May, knowing that the claim had to be issued by 5 May because of the weekend and bank holiday, but did not alert or chase the court. It also waited until 26 July to apply for an extension.
5. Because the preconditions were not met, the court had no discretion to extend time. The claim form was out of time, the extension application was refused, and the court had no jurisdiction.