Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo in black and white

UK Planning Law Blog

Real opinions on the alphabet soup of planning and development from s106 agreements to CIL, PDR to DCO, BIDs to UBR, viability to profits for everyone

open menu close menu

UK Planning Law Blog

  • Planning TV
  • Who We Are

Croyde Part 2 – Judicial Review and Certificates of Lawfulness

By Roy Pinnock
April 12, 2021
  • Certificates of Lawfulness
  • Judicial Review
  • Planning Permission
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

This blog picks up from the Part 1 blog on JR time limits issues arising from R (Croyde Area Residents Association) v North Devon District Council [2021] – in which planning permission for substantial commercial development was quashed over 6 years later.  Aside from the time limit issues, the approach to Certificates of Lawfulness are worth bearing in mind.  

Certificate issues

Permission had been granted unlawfully for an expanded site area in 2014.  A Certificate of Proposed Lawfulness was granted on appeal confirming the scope of the permission (LDC).  The expanded scale of development referred to in the LDC had not been implemented.

In defending the JR claim seeking the quashing of the 2014 permission (dealt with in our Part 1 blog), the site owner resisted the exercise of the judicial discretion to entertain the JR claim on various grounds. One of which was that it would impermissibly undermine the LDC and deprive the owner of its benefit given:

  • the time limit for challenges to the SoS decision (s.284(1) TCPA 1990)
  • the intended conclusiveness of such Certificates (s.192(4) TCPA 1990).  

Limitations Worth Bearing In Mind

The Judge accepted that:

  • The LDC only established proposed lawfulness on the date it was granted;
  • S.192(4) is clear that the conclusiveness of proposed lawfulness certificates is subject to any material change before the proposed use is instituted;
  • While the LDC Inspector had no choice but to reflect the extant permission in the LDC, quashing of the planning permission would be such a material change.  They rejected the owner’s argument that material change should be a material change on the land itself.

The judgment therefore confirms that material change for s.192(4) includes judicial acts and determinations such as the quashing of an earlier planning permission.

Special Circumstances Required For BackDoor Challenges

The Judge was clear that Section 284(1) related to the LDC not the planning permission.  The LDC is not intended to create absolute certainty of the use, given the material change provisions. Section 284(1) did not therefore deprive the Court of jurisdiction to hear the judicial review challenge to the underlying permission.

That said, it is clear that such challenges will still involve threading the eye of the needle:

  • It would be a highly unusual – if not exceptional – situation where the Court quashes a planning permission where the effect is to remove the benefit of an LDC;
  • “In the vast majority of cases the existence of an LDC will be an overwhelming reason not to quash a planning permission“;
  • This case was held to be exceptional:
    • the development referred to in the LDC remained unimplemented (and a subsequent permission had been granted for the limited development actually intended in 2014);
    • the scale of the impacts on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and related public confidence in the planning system were given significant weight.

The outcome underlines that great care is needed when relying on Certificates, particularly where they are prospective.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Roy Pinnock

About Roy Pinnock

Roy is a partner in the Planning and Public Law team, bringing his experience of working on regeneration projects within local government and as a consultant to his legal practice.

All posts Full bio

RELATED POSTS

  • Heritage Issues
  • Judicial Review
  • Planning Permission
  • Planning Policy

How many mickles to make a muckle? Heritage tests still not well understood

Planning should be about creative judgment and common sense. A recent High Court case (R (Obar Camden Ltd) v London […]

By Roy Pinnock
  • Development
  • Housebuilding
  • Localism
  • Neighbourhood Plans
  • Planning Appeals
  • Planning Guidance
  • Planning Permission
  • Planning Policy
  • Prematurity

Prematurity back in its box again

The publication of the NPPF in March 2012 raised questions about the approach to prematurity.  Refusal on prematurity grounds has […]

By Roy Pinnock
  • Planning Appeals
  • Planning Permission

Money back guarantee for planning – is it working?

We have already highlighted the varied outcomes from the Government’s ‘Planning Guarantee’ changes to the Planning (Fees etc) Regulations 2012.  […]

By Roy Pinnock

About Dentons

Across over 80 countries, Dentons helps you grow, protect, operate and finance your organization by providing uniquely global and deeply local legal solutions. Polycentric, purpose-driven and committed to inclusion, diversity, equity and sustainability, we focus on what matters most to you. www.dentons.com

Grow, Protect, Operate, Finance. Dentons, the law firm of the future is here. Copyright 2023 Dentons. Dentons is a global legal practice providing client services worldwide through its member firms and affiliates. Please see dentons.com for Legal notices.

Categories

Dentons logo in black and white

© 2025 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site