Manorwood Consultancy Limited v South Oxfordshire District Council

Publicity for a neighbourhood plan is judged by its likely effect, rather than by prescribed methods. The qualifying body has a broad discretion to choose publicity methods suited to local circumstances. There is no general duty to consult every developer directly, and a focused consultation of major site promoters may be reasonable and proportionate.

Section 61N(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 imposes a six-week limit measured from publication of the decision to make the plan. It does not remove ordinary public-law rights to challenge earlier plan-making stages, except where the challenge falls within section 61N(2) or (3). Extensions of time remain exceptional in planning cases, particularly where the claimant could have kept itself informed.

The claimant sought judicial review of the consultation processes preceding the making and adoption of the Wallingford Neighbourhood Plan Review. The review introduced a built-up area boundary which placed the claimant’s proposed five-house development outside the boundary.

The claimant argued that it had been unfairly excluded because the town council had directly approached other developers but not the claimant. The defendant contended that the claim was out of time. The issues were whether the publicity and consultation were lawful, whether section 61N(1) applied to a challenge based on an earlier stage of plan preparation, and whether time should otherwise be extended.

1. Merits. The claim failed. Regulation 14 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 is concerned with the outcome of publicity: it must be likely to bring the proposal to the attention of people who live, work or carry on business in the neighbourhood area. It does not prescribe particular publicity methods. The choice is for the qualifying body, having regard to local circumstances.
2. The statutory standard accepts that some interested persons may remain unaware of the process. Publicity is nevertheless a two-way process. Persons with land interests potentially affected by planning policy are expected to take reasonable steps to keep themselves informed. The publicity here was more than adequate, and the decision to consult promoters of larger sites fell within the wide range of reasonable and proportionate responses. There was no duty to approach every developer with a live planning application. The defendant’s decision to make the plan was lawful.
3. Time. Section 61N of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 imposes specific restrictions concerning the examiner’s recommendations, a referendum, and the decision to make the plan. Consistently with Fylde, it is restrictive rather than a new source of public-law rights. Section 61N(1) does not permit escape from the restrictions in subsections (2) and (3), but it permits a challenge to earlier plan-making steps, provided the claim is issued within six weeks of publication of the decision to make the plan.
4. The alternative application for an extension of time would have been refused. The court must consider the merits, prejudice, good administration and the public interest. In planning cases the need for promptness is particularly strong. The claimant’s lack of knowledge was insufficient, the merits were modest, and the delay was substantial. The court would also have refused relief under section 31(6) and (7) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
5. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted, but the claim was dismissed.