Mahadevan Krishnamohan v Secretary of State: planning permission validity and procedural compliance

The High Court has dismissed a challenge to an Inspector's decision confirming the validity of a 1969 outline planning permission for a dwellinghouse at Cliveden Stud Farm in Buckinghamshire's Green Belt. The claimant had sought to establish that the property was built without valid planning permission, thereby avoiding occupancy conditions restricting use to those engaged in agriculture or stud farming.

The case centred on three applications for Certificates of Lawful Existing Use or Development (CLEUDs). Each attempted to demonstrate that the dwelling, built in the 1970s, had not been constructed pursuant to the original outline permission. The claimant's primary argument was that the application site had been limited to the building footprint shown on the outline block plan, and that the house as built fell outside this area. Alternatively, if no valid site plan existed, the outline application itself was invalid.

Robert Palmer KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, rejected all grounds of challenge. The judgement clarified that Article 5(1) of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1963 required applications to be "accompanied by a plan sufficient to identify the land to which it relates" but was not prescriptive about the plan's form. Inspector Moss had properly found that the submitted plans—including "Plan A" showing the full 138-acre landholding and an outline block plan at 1:2500 scale—together satisfied this requirement.

The court emphasised that the outline application had clearly identified both the proposed dwelling's location and the extent of land justifying its construction in the Green Belt. The reserved matters approval, which showed slight variations in siting and orientation, remained in general compliance with the outline permission as required by the conditions imposed.

Significantly, the judgement addressed whether procedural deficiencies in an application could render a granted permission void. Citing established authorities including R (Thornton Hall Hotel Ltd) v Wirral MBC, the court confirmed that even if procedural requirements had not been met, the permission would retain legal effect unless quashed following judicial review. The Town and Country Planning Act 1962 contained no equivalent to section 327A of the 1990 Act, which now prohibits authorities from entertaining non-compliant applications.

The claimant's reliance on Newbury District Council v Secretary of State was misplaced. Whilst that case established that decision-makers could consider condition validity when determining enforcement appeals, it did not permit inspectors to disregard planning permissions on CLEUD appeals without a prior successful judicial review challenge.

The court also rejected procedural fairness arguments. The claimant contended that Inspector Moss had misconstrued a previous inspector's decision and should have sought clarification or invited further submissions. However, Inspector Moss had reached her conclusions independently based on the evidence before her. The previous inspector's observations were not determinative of the issues she needed to resolve.

A late attempt to introduce additional grounds relating to missing correspondence from 1969 was refused. The omission resulted from the claimant's representatives' failure to submit documents to the Planning Inspectorate, and the inspector had no obligation to request materials not provided.

The decision reinforces that historical planning permissions cannot easily be undermined through technical challenges to procedural compliance, particularly where over 50 years have elapsed. The principle of legal certainty in the planning system prevails absent timely judicial review proceedings establishing unlawfulness. Attempts to escape validly imposed conditions through retrospective challenges to application validity face formidable obstacles.

Copyright & permissions