The case comes almost six months after the first attempt to use the act to overturn a planning decision was rejected.
In that case, developer Alconbury argued that the power of secretary the stated to call-in and decide on planning applications meant that they acted as judges in their own cause.
The High Court accepted this argument, but the House of Lords overturned its ruling.
The McAlpine case will determine whether local councils have similarly conflicting powers to the secretary of state. The court is expected to come to a decision in December.
McAlpine is appealing against a decision in 1998 by Swale council in Kent to reject a planning application for 200 houses in Sittingborne. McAlpine claims that the council breached the Human Rights Act in doing this.
Richard Valentine, barrister for the firm, said the refusal to accept these proposals, despite support from an independent planning inspector, contravened article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This says that every citizen has the right of appeal to an independent and impartial tribunal.
"What's the point of having an independent inspector, only to have his decision rolled into the gutter?" said Valentine. "The whole system laid down in the Planning Act 1990 is inherently flawed."
McAlpine's proposals were not included in the council's plan because of objections from residents. McAlpine contested this at an inquiry but its claims were rejected.
Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, councillors are not bound to accept an inspector's recommendation. The only option open to a developer then is to seek a judicial review.
Valentine said that if McAlpine was successful in this case it would create a precedent that would have profound implications for the housebuilding and planning sector. "It would be a challenge to the very statute of local planning," he said.
Andrew Whitaker, regional planner at the House Builders Federation, welcomed McAlpine's initiative. He said the actions of planning authorities in overturning the recommendations of independent inspectors had been called into question on a number of occasions.
