Arun District Council v The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors

In a planning statutory review, service on every required defendant and interested party is a condition of invoking the court’s jurisdiction. A party’s statement that it will not participate does not cure defective or late service. An extension requires all reasonable steps to have been taken within the prescribed period and a prompt application. Absence of prejudice is irrelevant. A planning inspector may grant permission subject to a pre-commencement drainage condition where an acceptable alternative scheme may reasonably be achieved.

Arun District Council sought permission for a statutory review under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 288, challenging an inspector’s decision allowing an appeal against refusal of planning permission for seven dwellings.

The claim was served on the Secretary of State in time, but service on the developers was attempted through their planning consultant and direct service occurred 32 days late. The developers did not wish to participate. The issues were whether time should be extended, whether the claim could proceed against the Secretary of State alone, and whether the inspector’s treatment of sustainable drainage and planning conditions was unlawful.

1. The developers were persons aggrieved and had to be served. Service on their planning consultant was ineffective because there was no evidence that he had authority to accept service.
2. Applying Good Law Project Ltd v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Rogers v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the Council had to show that it took all reasonable steps to serve within the six-week period and applied promptly for an extension. It failed both requirements. A 32-day delay was not prompt.
3. The failure to serve the developers in time meant that jurisdiction had not been invoked. The claim was a single statutory challenge, not separate claims against different defendants. The developers’ non-participation and the absence of prejudice to the Secretary of State did not cure the defect.
4. If jurisdiction existed, all four grounds were unarguable. The inspector could consider whether an alternative sustainable drainage scheme could be advanced and impose a pre-commencement condition. The relevant policy did not prohibit resolving the detailed scheme by condition, and the inspector did not reverse the burden of proof.
5. Under South Bucks DC v Porter (No 2), the reasons were intelligible and adequate when read as a whole. The application for permission to bring statutory review proceedings failed.