AC-2024-LON-002558 - [2025] EWHC 2278 (Admin)

On 26^th July 2024 the Claimant filed a claim for judicial review. Whilst this was within 6 weeks of the Claimant becoming aware of the circumstances of the case, it is accepted that it was more than 6 weeks after the date of the prior approval. The claim form included an application for an extension of time to bring the claim.

The claim included five grounds which I summarise as follows:

The claim was considered on the papers by Mr CMG Ockelton (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court). By his Order dated 14^th October 2024 he refused permission to bring the claim on all grounds. One can infer from the terms of his Order that the application for an extension of time was also refused, although it is clear that permission was refused on the merits of the claim.

The Claimant renewed his application for permission to an oral hearing. It was considered by Mr Dan Kolinsky KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge). By his Order dated 7^th February 2025 Mr Kolinsky KC granted the application for an extension of time. He also granted permission to proceed with judicial review on Grounds 1 to 4, refusing permission on Ground 5.

In relation to the extension of time it is relevant to note (from paragraph 4 of his Order) that Mr Kolinsky KC relied upon the assumption at the time that the Interested Party had not erected the required site notice. He indicated that if the Defendant or Interested Party introduced contrary evidence then the extension of time application could be reconsidered. As it turns out, neither of them have done so. Indeed Ms Nevin (who appeared for the Council) was willing to accept that no site notice was erected and that the Council would not contest the grant of an extension of time.

On this basis the claim came before me for substantive hearing.

I turn now to consider the submissions of the parties in relation to the four grounds that are pursued.