Gluck v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government & Anor [2020] EWHC 161 (Admin) (31 January 2020)
Article 7(c) of the GPDO 2015 allows for the extension of time periods for determination of prior approval applications by agreement in writing between the applicant and the authority, regardless of whether the time period is specified in Schedule 2 or provided by Article 7(b). The Inspector was entitled to find that an extension had been agreed in writing in this case, and the Claimant's argument that the time period was incapable of extension is rejected.
- Citation
- [2020] EWHC 161 (Admin)
- Parties
- Claimant: Mr J. J. Gluck; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Crawley Borough Council
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 31 January 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment
- Outcome
- Claim dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Permitted Development Rights, Prior Approval Procedures, Statutory Interpretation, Town and Country Planning Act 1990, General Permitted Development Order 2015
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mr J. J. Gluck
Claimant
Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government
First Defendant
Crawley Borough Council
Second Defendant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether time periods for prior approval applications under GPDO 2015 Schedule 2 can be extended by agreement under Article 7(c)
- 2 Proper construction of Article 7 of the GPDO 2015 and its interaction with Schedule 2
- 3 Whether the Inspector erred in law in upholding the extension of time for determination of prior approval applications
Ratio Decidendi
Article 7(c) of the GPDO 2015 allows for the extension of time periods for determination of prior approval applications by agreement in writing between the applicant and the authority, regardless of whether the time period is specified in Schedule 2 or provided by Article 7(b). The Inspector was entitled to find that an extension had been agreed in writing in this case, and the Claimant's argument that the time period was incapable of extension is rejected.
Court Disposition
Claim dismissed
Orders
- Applications to quash the appeal and costs decisions are refused.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment