R v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham & Ors, ex parte Burkett & Anor [2002] UKHL 23
The point in plain English: Under the procedural regime considered in Burkett, a challenge to planning permission ran from the actual grant of permission, not merely from an earlier resolution that permission would be granted once an agreement had been completed.
What the House of Lords decided
The council had resolved to grant permission subject to a section 106 agreement, with the formal permission issued later. The House of Lords held that the claimant was entitled to wait for the actual grant before bringing judicial review. A preliminary resolution could be challenged in an appropriate case, but there was no general obligation to challenge it before the operative planning permission existed.
Why Burkett matters today
The case remains important for identifying the decision being challenged, but its discussion of time limits is historic. The current Civil Procedure Rules impose a specific six-week period for judicial review relating to decisions under the planning acts. Anyone contemplating a challenge should therefore check the current rule and act immediately.
See Planning Geek’s guide to judicial review and section 288 challenges.
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.