Challenging a planning permission in the High Court
The court reviews how the decision was taken, not whether it was right. The routes, the six-week clock, the grounds that work and what a quashing order actually achieves.
A judicial review of planning permission has to be filed within six weeks, not the three months that applies to public law challenges generally, and that deadline shapes everything else here. The court is reviewing the lawfulness of how the decision was taken, not whether it was the right decision. A challenge that argues the council should have refused permission will fail. A challenge that shows the council misread its own policy, ignored something it was legally required to consider, or failed to follow a required procedure has a route.
The two routes, and which one you need
Where a local planning authority grants permission, the challenge is judicial review, brought in the Planning Court, a specialist part of the Administrative Court.
Where the decision was made by an inspector or the Secretary of State, on an appeal or a called-in application, the route is a statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It is heard in the same court and applies much the same principles, but it needs the court's permission and it has its own six-week clock running from the date of the decision.
Local plans and neighbourhood plans are challenged under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, again within six weeks of adoption.
Using the wrong route is fatal, so identify the decision maker before anything else.
The six-week deadline
For judicial review of a planning decision, the claim form must be filed promptly and in any event not later than six weeks after the grounds first arose. In practice that runs from the date the decision was issued.
Six weeks is very short for work that involves obtaining the officer's report and the consultation responses, taking advice, sending a pre-action protocol letter, allowing the authority time to respond, and drafting grounds. The practical consequence is that the decision to look at a challenge has to be made in the first few days, not the fourth week.
The court has a limited discretion to extend time and it is rarely exercised in planning cases, because third parties act on permissions.
What counts as a ground
Public law grounds fall into recognisable groups.
Illegality covers misinterpreting a policy, which is a question of law for the court, and failing to take into account a material consideration that the decision maker was obliged to consider. Failures under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 or the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017 sit here, and a screening opinion that failed to consider a significant effect is a familiar ground. If your concern is that an Environmental Impact Assessment should have been required and was not, that is a legal question rather than a planning judgement.
Procedural unfairness covers a failure to consult where consultation was required, consultation that was inadequate in law, and a breach of a legitimate expectation created by the authority's own statements.
Irrationality means a decision no reasonable authority could have reached. The threshold is very high and disagreement with the planning balance does not meet it.
Reasons challenges are narrower than people assume. There is generally no statutory duty on an authority to give reasons for granting permission, following the removal of that requirement from the procedure order, though the Supreme Court in Dover District Council v CPRE Kent confirmed that the common law can require reasons in some circumstances, particularly where members depart from an officer's recommendation.
Standing and the permission stage
The claimant needs a sufficient interest in the matter. Neighbours, local residents and constituted local groups are generally accepted. A person with no connection to the area may not be.
Judicial review has a permission filter. A judge considers the papers and decides whether the grounds are arguable. If permission is refused on the papers, the claimant can normally ask for the decision to be reconsidered at an oral hearing. Only if permission is granted does the claim proceed to a substantive hearing.
That filter is useful. It means the early cost of testing a case is far lower than the cost of running it, and a properly advised claimant finds out fairly quickly whether there is a point of law worth pursuing.
Costs and the Aarhus cap
The general rule is that the losing party pays the winner's costs, which is what deters most challenges.
Environmental claims within the Aarhus Convention benefit from a costs cap. For a claimant who is an individual the cap on liability for the other side's costs is £5,000, and for an organisation it is £10,000, while the defendant's exposure to the claimant's costs is capped at £35,000. The claimant has to state that the claim is an Aarhus claim and provide a schedule of financial resources, and the other party can apply to vary the cap.
Many planning challenges qualify. Whether yours does is a question worth asking a solicitor in the first week, because it changes the risk from unlimited to a known number.
The remedy, and what it does not do
The usual remedy is a quashing order, which sets the permission aside and returns the application to the authority to decide again lawfully. It does not mean refusal. A council that made a procedural error can correct the error and reach the same conclusion.
Relief is discretionary. Section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 requires the court to refuse relief where it appears highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different had the conduct complained of not occurred. So a technical error that plainly made no difference will not get a permission quashed.
What to do in the first week
- Download the decision notice, the officer's report, the consultation responses and the plans from the planning register, and note the decision date.
- Write down the specific legal error you say occurred, in one sentence, and identify the document that shows it.
- Contact a solicitor with a planning public law practice immediately, and mention the six-week deadline in the first email.
- Send a pre-action protocol letter setting out the ground and the remedy sought, giving the authority a short period to respond.
- Consider whether the claim is an Aarhus claim and gather the financial information the cap requires.
Two alternatives are worth knowing about. A complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman can address maladministration but cannot overturn a permission. And a request to the Secretary of State to call in an application only works before the decision is made, which is another reason to engage during the consultation period rather than after it.
Objectors who want to shape a decision rather than unpick one are better served by getting the technical evidence right at consultation stage. Reading the application's supporting documents, and knowing which of the planning report types should have been submitted and were not, is a more reliable route than the courts.
This is general guidance rather than legal advice. Court procedure and costs rules change, and anyone considering a challenge should take advice from a solicitor without delay.
Enter a postcode on PlanScope to see which reports an application on a given site would normally need. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.
Frequently asked questions
How long do I have to challenge a planning permission?
Six weeks. Judicial review of a planning decision must be filed promptly and in any event no later than six weeks after the grounds first arose, which in practice runs from the date the decision was issued. Statutory review of an inspector's decision under section 288 has its own six-week limit from the decision date.
What is the difference between judicial review and a section 288 challenge?
Judicial review is used where a local planning authority made the decision. Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is used where the decision was made by an inspector or the Secretary of State on an appeal or called-in application. Both are heard in the Planning Court and both need permission from the court.
Can I challenge a permission because I disagree with it?
No. The court reviews the lawfulness of the process, not the planning merits. Grounds include misinterpreting policy, failing to consider something the decision maker was legally required to consider, breaches of the Habitats or EIA Regulations, and procedural unfairness. Irrationality is available but the threshold is very high.
How much does a challenge cost?
The loser normally pays the winner's costs, but environmental claims within the Aarhus Convention are capped. An individual claimant's liability is capped at £5,000 and an organisation's at £10,000, with the defendant's exposure capped at £35,000. The claimant must state that it is an Aarhus claim and file a schedule of financial resources.
What happens if the challenge succeeds?
The usual remedy is a quashing order, which sets the permission aside and returns the application to the authority to determine again lawfully. It does not require refusal. Relief is discretionary, and section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 requires the court to refuse it where the outcome would highly likely have been the same.
Sources and further reading
This article is general guidance about the planning system in England and, where stated, the rest of the UK. It is not legal or professional advice. Check your local planning authority’s validation requirements and take professional advice for your specific site.