When Can a Planning Decision Be Challenged by Judicial Review?
A planning decision can have major consequences for a homeowner, landowner, developer, neighbour or business. A local planning authority may grant permission, refuse an application, impose conditions or take another decision under planning legislation. But disagreement with the result is not enough, by itself, to justify judicial review.
Judicial review is concerned with whether a public body acted lawfully when making its decision. It is not a second planning appeal on the merits. Because planning judicial review has a short court deadline, anyone considering a planning judicial review solicitor or another public-law professional should assess the position quickly. Aldwych Legal supports clients across England with planning disputes, enforcement responses and strategic case preparation.
Judicial Review Tests Lawfulness, Not Planning Merits
A court does not normally decide whether it would have approved the development or given different weight to planning considerations. Those matters are primarily for the planning decision-maker. Judicial review may be relevant where the authority applied the wrong legal test, failed to consider a matter it was legally required to take into account, relied on an irrelevant consideration, acted unfairly, or reached a decision that was irrational in the public-law sense.
Government planning guidance distinguishes between whether a consideration is legally material and the weight given to it. Once all material considerations have been addressed, weight is generally a matter for the decision-maker, subject to public-law limits.
Check Whether There Is Another Appeal Route
Judicial review is generally a remedy of last resort. Where an adequate alternative statutory remedy exists, the court will ordinarily expect that route to be used. An applicant whose planning permission has been refused may have a section 78 appeal to the Secretary of State, administered by the Planning Inspectorate. Appeal rights may also arise against objectionable conditions or non-determination.
A neighbour or other third party generally has no statutory appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against a council’s grant of planning permission. If the complaint is that the grant was unlawful rather than simply undesirable, judicial review may instead be relevant.
Before starting proceedings, the precise decision and any available statutory challenge route should therefore be identified.
What Can Make a Planning Decision Unlawful?
Several types of public-law error can potentially support judicial review. A decision may be vulnerable where the council:
- misunderstands or misapplies relevant legislation;
- fails to take account of a legally material consideration;
- relies on a legally irrelevant consideration;
- follows a procedurally unfair process;
- acts for an improper purpose or with unlawful bias; or
- reaches a conclusion that is irrational in the public-law sense.
A procedurally unfair planning decision does not arise merely because somebody dislikes the process. The alleged defect needs to be legally significant. Aldwych Legal can support evidence-led preparation where the planning file, committee records or council correspondence need to be reviewed before a potential public-law challenge is assessed.
Planning Committee Decisions Need Careful Review
Planning committee decisions can generate disputes where councillors reach a different conclusion from the planning officer’s recommendation. That difference does not automatically make the decision unlawful.
Councillors can exercise planning judgement, provided they act within the legal framework and address relevant material considerations. A challenge should focus on an identifiable legal error rather than simply saying the committee should have followed the officer’s recommendation.
Useful records may include the officer report, committee agenda and minutes, relevant policies, representations, decision notice and any recording of the meeting. Someone seeking to challenge a council planning decision should identify what the council allegedly did unlawfully and how the documents support that allegation.
The Six-Week Court Deadline Is Critical
Civil Procedure Rule 54.5 provides a shorter time limit for certain planning judicial reviews. Where the challenge relates to a decision made by the Secretary of State or a local planning authority under the planning Acts, the claim form must be filed no later than six weeks after the grounds for the claim first arose.
The ordinary three-month judicial review period should therefore not be assumed to apply to such planning decisions. The Judicial Review Pre-Action Protocol also does not extend the six-week limit. If time is running out, proceedings may need to be filed before every pre-action step has been completed.
Information through Aldwych Legal’s planning dispute service can help explain how planning records, council decision-making and public-law issues fit together when a dispute is being assessed.
The Pre-Action Process Still Matters
Where time permits, the Judicial Review Pre-Action Protocol expects a prospective claimant to set out the proposed challenge before proceedings begin. A letter before claim should identify the decision challenged, relevant facts, proposed legal grounds and remedy sought.
The process can clarify issues, obtain information and explore whether litigation can be avoided. However, it should never cause the claimant to miss the applicable court deadline.
Judicial review also requires the court’s permission to proceed. Filing a claim does not mean the substantive challenge will automatically receive a full hearing.
What Evidence Should Be Reviewed?
Judicial review often turns on documents showing how the authority reached its decision. Relevant material may include:
- the planning application and supporting documents;
- the decision notice;
- the planning officer’s report;
- development-plan policies and relevant national policy;
- committee agendas, minutes and recordings;
- consultation responses and objections; and
- correspondence relating to the decision-making process.
The evidence should be organised around the alleged legal error. A large bundle is not useful if it does not show why the decision may have been unlawful.
What Can the Court Do?
If permission for judicial review is granted and the challenge succeeds, the court has several remedies available. Depending on the case, these can include a quashing order, mandatory order, prohibiting order, declaration or injunction.
In a planning case, a quashing order may set aside the unlawful decision so that the authority must reconsider the matter lawfully. That does not ordinarily mean the court grants or refuses planning permission itself.
Judicial review can also carry significant cost consequences, so the merits, evidence, standing and appropriate remedy should be assessed carefully.
Keep Planning Separate From Other Property Issues
A successful judicial review does not automatically resolve Building Regulations, licensing, restrictive covenants, title rights or private disputes between neighbouring owners. Those matters operate under separate legal regimes.
Conclusion
Judicial review can provide an important safeguard where a planning decision has been made unlawfully, but it is not a route for asking a judge to reconsider planning merits. The potential claimant needs an identifiable public-law error, sufficient interest in the matter and a case that is not better addressed through an alternative statutory remedy.
Timing is particularly important. For planning decisions covered by Civil Procedure Rule 54.5(5), the claim form must be filed no later than six weeks after the grounds first arose, and the pre-action process does not extend that period.
Aldwych Legal supports clients across England with planning-dispute preparation and strategic case management. Early review of the planning file, committee records and available appeal routes can help establish whether judicial review is genuinely available or whether another planning remedy is more appropriate.