Challenging a planning permission and the six week limit

If you want to challenge a planning permission, the hard fact to absorb first is the deadline. A claim for judicial review of a planning decision must be filed not later than six weeks after the grounds to make the claim first arose, and the court has very little room to extend it. Six weeks is not six weeks from when you heard about the decision, or from when a solicitor became available. It runs from the decision. Everything else here is secondary to that date.

What a challenge can and cannot achieve

A court hearing a planning challenge is not a second decision-maker. It does not ask whether the permission was a good idea, whether the design is poor or whether the site was the right one. It asks whether the council acted lawfully.

If the claim succeeds, the usual remedy is that the permission is quashed and the application goes back to the authority to be decided again. The authority may then reach the same conclusion by a lawful route, and often does. That is worth understanding before anyone raises money: a successful challenge buys a proper decision, not a different one.

Three routes exist, and which applies depends on who made the decision. Judicial review for a council's grant of permission. A statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for a decision of the Secretary of State or an inspector, including appeal decisions. A challenge under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 for a development plan document. All three carry a six week limit.

The time limit and when it starts running

For judicial review of a planning permission, time runs from the date of the decision, which in practice is the date the decision notice is issued rather than the date of the committee resolution or the date the permission appears on the register.

Two consequences follow. You cannot wait for the officer report to be published, then for the section 106 to be completed, then for the minutes to appear. And the pre-action protocol letter, which you should still send, does not stop the clock. Solicitors experienced in this work will often issue proceedings protectively and continue correspondence afterwards.

If you think a permission may be challengeable, take advice in week one. Not week five.

Grounds that succeed and grounds that do not

The grounds are public law grounds. In outline, they are that the authority acted outside its powers, took into account something it should not have or ignored something it had to, misdirected itself on the meaning of a policy, reached a decision no reasonable authority could reach, acted unfairly in procedure, or failed to give legally adequate reasons where reasons were required.

In planning, the recurring ones are these. Misinterpretation of a development plan policy, which is a question of law for the court rather than a matter of planning judgement. Failure to carry out a required assessment, such as screening under the environmental impact assessment regulations or an appropriate assessment under the habitats regulations. A material consideration left out of the officer report. Departure from the development plan without the statutory reasoning. And, where a committee grants permission against officer advice on a controversial scheme, failure to give reasons, an issue the Supreme Court examined in CPRE Kent v Dover District Council.

What does not work is disagreement on the merits. "The building is too tall", "the traffic will be terrible" and "the officer gave too much weight to housing supply" are planning arguments, and the time to make them was during consultation.

The pre-action protocol letter

The protocol expects a claimant to write to the authority before issuing, setting out the decision challenged, the grounds, the remedy sought and a date for response. It is normally 14 days.

Write it carefully even under time pressure. A good protocol letter sometimes produces the documents that decide whether to proceed, and occasionally produces a concession. A vague one wastes the only pre-litigation opportunity you have. Ask for the specific documents you need, using the request route for information the council holds in parallel where the material has not been published.

Send it to the authority as defendant and to the developer as an interested party, because the developer will be served in any event and will usually take the leading role in defending.

Permission stage and the costs exposure

Judicial review is a two-stage process. A judge considers on the papers whether the claim is arguable. If permission is refused, the claimant can usually ask for that to be reconsidered at an oral hearing. Only if permission is granted does the claim proceed to a substantive hearing.

Two features make planning claims harder than they look. First, section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 requires the court to refuse relief where it appears highly likely that the outcome would not have been substantially different had the conduct complained of not occurred. A technical flaw that made no difference will not get a permission quashed. Second, costs follow the event, so an unsuccessful claimant faces the authority's costs and, frequently, a contribution to the developer's.

Aarhus costs protection in environmental cases

Where a claim falls within the Aarhus Convention, which covers most challenges raising environmental issues, the Civil Procedure Rules cap the claimant's liability for the other side's costs and cap what the claimant can recover from the defendant.

The standard caps are modest for an individual claimant and somewhat higher for an organisation, with a separate cap on the defendant's recovery. The court can vary them on application, and a claimant claiming the protection has to file a schedule of financial resources. The figures and the procedure have both been amended since they were introduced, so check the current rules rather than an older summary, and take advice on whether your claim qualifies before relying on the protection.

For a residents' association or a parish council, this is usually the difference between a possible claim and an impossible one.

Alternatives before you reach court

Most people who want to challenge a permission are better served by something other than litigation.

Where the complaint is about how the council behaved rather than whether the decision was lawful, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman investigates maladministration. It cannot overturn a permission, and it will not look at anything that could have been taken to court, but it can produce findings and a remedy.

Where the concern is about what happens next, the more useful work is often watching the conditions. Conditions requiring details to be approved before work starts are enforceable, and a breach of condition is a live matter for the enforcement team. Keeping a record of what was approved and when, as set out in the notes on building a compliance file after permission is granted, gives a community group real influence long after the decision.

And where the decision has not yet been made, the routes are consultation, the committee speaking slot and, in rare cases, a request to the Secretary of State. None of those helps once the notice is issued, which is the point.

One honest caution. Planning judicial review is specialist work, permission rates are low, and the costs risk is real even with Aarhus protection. Get an opinion from a planning solicitor or counsel before raising money from neighbours.

Browse the 66 PlanScope report types if you are trying to understand which technical documents should have supported an application. See what a site is likely to need before the next one comes forward. This is general guidance, not legal advice. Check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.