Arun District Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors [2026] EWHC 1172 (Admin)
Arun section 288 service is a stark Planning Court judgment on the six-week statutory review procedure.
Arun District Council issued its section 288 challenge in time but failed to serve the interested parties within the statutory six-week period. The court refused an extension and held that it had no jurisdiction to determine the claim, even though the late service had caused no substantive prejudice.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2026] EWHC 1172 (Admin)
- Court
- High Court, King's Bench Division, Planning Court
- Judgment date
- 15th May 2026
- Judge
- HHJ Karen Walden-Smith, sitting as a Judge of the High Court
- Case number
- AC-2025-LON-000390
What Arun decided
The case arose from an Inspector’s decision granting planning permission for seven dwellings at Little Paddocks, Pagham.
Arun District Council sought statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Although the claim was lodged within the six-week period, the interested parties were not served within that same statutory window.
HHJ Karen Walden-Smith held that the failure was fatal. The court could not extend the statutory time for service in the circumstances and therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain the challenge.
Issuing in time is not enough
A section 288 challenge is governed by a tightly prescribed statutory procedure. Compliance involves more than lodging the claim form before the six-week deadline.
Where the rules require service on specified parties within the statutory period, that step forms part of getting the challenge properly before the court.
Arun is therefore a practical warning against treating service as an administrative task which can safely be completed after issue.
No prejudice did not create jurisdiction
The interested parties later indicated that they did not intend to take part, and there was no suggestion that the delay had caused them substantive prejudice.
That did not cure the jurisdictional problem. A court cannot use general case-management powers to enlarge a statutory time limit where Parliament has made timely compliance a condition of the challenge.
The distinction between procedural prejudice and statutory jurisdiction was decisive.
Planning statutory review deadlines are deliberately strict
The short period reflects the public interest in certainty around planning decisions. Developers, councils, landowners and third parties need to know quickly whether a permission is under legal challenge.
The case reinforces the need to identify every person who must be served, obtain the correct service details and complete service before the six weeks expire.
The proposed planning grounds were weak in any event
Although the jurisdictional point disposed of the case, the judge also considered the proposed grounds and concluded that none was arguable.
Among the issues was the Inspector’s treatment of drainage and a condition requiring further sustainable drainage details before commencement. The court considered that the use of such a condition had been open to the Inspector on the evidence.
This part of the judgment does not dilute the main procedural holding, but it shows that the claim would not have succeeded on its planning merits even if service had been valid.
Why Arun matters
For section 288 challenges, the practical lesson is simple: calculate the six-week deadline once, then work backwards for service rather than treating the filing date as the end of the job.
On the planning side, the judgment is also a reminder that conditions can be used to secure further technical detail where the decision-maker has a rational basis for concluding the development can be made acceptable.
For current flood and drainage considerations see Planning Geek’s Flood Risk Assessment guide.
Read the full Arun judgment
The full Planning Court judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Arun Section 288 Service Case Law Page Updated: 10th September 2026