Murrell & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 1367
The point in plain English: Where an agricultural prior-approval application contains everything the GPDO actually requires, the council cannot stop the statutory clock by demanding extra material which the Order does not require.
What happened
The Murrells proposed a cattle shelter under the agricultural permitted-development provisions then in force. Their first submission contained the written description, materials, site plan and fee required by the GPDO. Broadland District Council nevertheless treated it as invalid and asked for additional plans, copies and a newer form.
The council later decided that prior approval was required and refused it, but did so after the statutory 28-day period measured from the first valid application.
What the Court of Appeal decided
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. Whether an application satisfies the statutory requirements is an objective question of law. The council’s mistaken view that further material was needed did not stop the clock, and the later submission did not withdraw or replace the original application.
The court also stressed that, once the underlying permitted-development requirements are met, the principle of the agricultural development is not reconsidered at the prior-approval stage. The authority is dealing with the specified details, not a fresh full planning application.
Why Murrell matters
The precise wording considered was the 1995 GPDO, so today’s Part 6 provisions must be read directly. But Murrell remains an important warning against inventing validation requirements or using prior approval to reopen the principle of development.
See Planning Geek’s guide to prior approval for the current procedure.
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.