Georgina Wallis, R (on the application of) v North Northamptonshire Council

Challenges to planning permissions must be brought with the greatest possible celerity. Where there has been undue delay, the court must weigh the importance of the issues, prospects of success, prejudice to the parties, and the public interest. A failure by a local planning authority to carry out a neighbour consultation which it had decided to undertake may amount to a material error of fact, particularly where the authority grants permission believing that consultation has occurred. That error does not automatically justify an extension of time. Substantial prejudice to a developer, completion of the development, and the claimant’s subsequent delay may outweigh the public interest in examining the unlawfulness. A site notice placed a substantial distance away may nevertheless be “near the land” where the sites are close, visible from one another, and readily identifiable.

The claimant, a resident adjoining a former factory site, sought permission and an extension of time to challenge two planning permissions granted by North Northamptonshire Council. The first permission, granted in 2021, authorised a change of use from B2 to B8. The second, granted in 2022, authorised demolition and construction of a large industrial building with Class E, B2 and B8 uses.

The Council had mistakenly sent neighbour consultation letters to properties near a different former Weetabix site. The claimant also alleged defective site notices, failure to consider residential amenity and unlawful noise conditions. The claim was issued more than two and a half years after the first permission and more than one and a half years after the second. The central issues were whether time should be extended and whether the proposed grounds had realistic prospects of success.

1. Extension of time. The claim involved extreme undue delay. Although the initial delay was understandable because the claimant had not received a neighbour consultation letter, she should reasonably have investigated the development by October 2023 at the latest, when construction works and repeated contractor letters made the nature of the development apparent. She then delayed for nearly three months after learning of the permission. The requirement for the greatest possible celerity in planning challenges was applicable.
2. In applying section 31(6) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the court considered the importance of the issues, prospects of success, prejudice, and the public interest. IP1 had completed a major distribution-centre development in reliance on the permissions. Granting an extension would expose it to the risk of quashing and substantial contractual and commercial prejudice. The claimant had an alternative potential remedy through the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
3. Neighbour consultation. The Council’s statutory notification requirements were largely complied with. However, its established policy and practice for major applications included consultation of neighbouring properties. The Council failed to follow that policy because it selected the wrong addresses. The decision-makers granted permission in the mistaken belief that consultation had taken place. That satisfied the criteria for a material mistake of fact leading to unfairness.
4. Site notices. Compliance with the 2021 site-display requirement was not demonstrated. The 2022 notice, placed outside the neighbouring former Weetabix site, was nevertheless “near” the application land for the purposes of article 15(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. The sites were close, visible from one another, and readily identifiable.
5. The challenge to the 2021 permission was academic because the buildings had been demolished, the permission had never been implemented, and it had expired. The residential-amenity ground concerning the 2022 permission had no realistic prospect of success because the Council had been informed of the building’s scale, height, location and likely impact, and amendments had been made following pre-application concerns. The noise challenge was essentially a merits challenge and also had no realistic prospect of success.
6. The application for an extension of time and the application for permission to apply for judicial review were refused. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, subject to a limit of £5,000.

First-instance judicial review decision. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.