Standing and substituting claimants

A Planning Court judge has recently considered the approach taken to the issue of standing and the substitution of parties in statutory planning appeals. Sarah Sackman reports.

Holgate J dismissed a s.288 challenge to an Inspector’s decision dismissing a s.78 appeal against the LPA’s refusal to remove restrictive planning conditions from a consent for an agricultural building in the Green Belt.

The case is interesting for the approach taken to the issue of standing and the substitution of parties. The Secretary of State argued successfully that the named claimant, Mr R Singhal, lacked the necessary standing to bring the claim since he had had no involvement in the appeal proceedings and had no interest in the appeal site. There was thus no evidence to show that he was a “person aggrieved” for the purposes of s.288(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (see Walton v Scottish Ministers [2013] PTSR 51, Lord Reed at [86] and [87]). The real driving force behind the claim was Mr Singhal’s son, Mr B Singhal the director of Singhal UK Ltd which was responsible for the original planning application.

Mr B Singhal argued that he was still entitled to apply to substitute his father with the company. He asserted that in his original grounds he had flagged the possibility that “if there is a technical objection about the claimant’s standing, then the court is requested to substitute the parties”.

Holgate J accepted the Secretary of State’s arguments that that conditional statement did not amount to an “in time” application for substitution and that substitution was not possible in circumstances where the limitation period for bringing a claim under s.288 (6 weeks from the day on which the decision is issued) has passed. CPR r19.5 makes provision for the limited circumstances in which parties may be substituted after the expiry of the relevant limitation period. However, the court was bound by the judgment of the Court of Appeal held in Eco Energy Limited v First Secretary of State [2004] EWCA Civ 1566 (see Buxton LJ at [27]) r19.5 does not apply to claims under s.288. The court, therefore, no longer had the jurisdiction to substitute the claimant and dismissed the application.

Sarah Sackman is a barrister at Francis Taylor Building. She acted for the successful Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.