Gluck v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 1756
The point in plain English: A fixed prior-approval decision period in Schedule 2 to the GPDO can be extended by agreement under Article 7(c). The agreement needs to identify the longer period and be evidenced in writing.
What happened
Mr Gluck applied under the former Class O right to convert two office buildings in Crawley to flats. The applications were subject to a 56-day prior-approval period. As that deadline approached, the parties discussed extra time while noise evidence was considered.
The council issued refusals after the original 56 days but before the extended date. Mr Gluck argued that deemed approval had already arisen because the statutory period could not validly be extended, or had not been extended in the required form.
What the Court of Appeal decided
The Court held that Article 7(c) applies both where Schedule 2 specifies a decision period and where the GPDO supplies a default period. A Schedule 2 deadline can therefore be extended if the applicant and authority agree a longer period.
The agreement must be sufficiently clear to identify the longer period and must be evidenced in writing. On the particular correspondence, an extension to 12th May 2018 had been agreed. The appeal was dismissed.
Why Gluck matters
The case arose under the now-revoked Class O office-to-residential right, but its reasoning on Article 7 is broader than Class O. Where a current GPDO prior-approval procedure is capable of extension under Article 7, the safest course is for both sides to record the agreed new deadline expressly in writing.
See our prior approval guide for the current procedural rules.
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.