Judicial review of a planning decision: grounds and timing

Judicial review of a planning decision asks whether the council acted lawfully, never whether it decided wisely. That distinction disposes of most enquiries before they start. If your objection is that the committee reached the wrong answer on harm to the street scene, there is no remedy in the courts, because weight is a matter for the decision maker. If the council granted permission without carrying out a duty the law imposes on it, there may be. And the clock is short: six weeks.

Why this is not a second appeal

The High Court reviews the legality of the process and the reasoning, not the planning merits. A judge will not substitute their own view of whether a scheme is acceptable, and an application that reads as a disagreement about judgement is dismissed at the permission stage.

There is also no third party right of appeal in England against a grant of permission. That absence is the reason judicial review carries so much weight in objector circles, and the reason it is so often attempted on unsuitable facts.

The remedy, if a claim succeeds, is normally a quashing order. The permission falls away and the application returns to the council to be decided again, lawfully. It can then be granted again. Winning a judicial review buys a fresh, properly conducted decision rather than a refusal.

The grounds that actually exist

Claims are argued under a small number of heads, and the useful exercise is matching your complaint to one of them.

Illegality covers errors of law. Misinterpreting a policy in the development plan, treating a policy as a rule when it is a matter of judgement, failing to take into account something the decision maker was legally obliged to consider, or taking into account something legally irrelevant.

Breach of a statutory duty is often the strongest ground because the duty is written down. The duty to have special regard to preserving a listed building or its setting under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and the equivalent duty for conservation areas. The public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The habitats regulations duties on protected sites. The obligation to determine in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Procedural unfairness covers consultation that was not carried out properly, a failure to notify people entitled to be notified, or a decision taken without giving someone a fair opportunity to be heard. A defective site notice on its own rarely succeeds. A consultation that presented a materially different scheme from the one approved sometimes does.

Inadequate reasons is a ground where the decision needs to be understood. Officers' reports are read fairly and as a whole, and a court will not comb them for infelicities. Where a committee overturns an officer recommendation, the reasons given at the meeting matter a great deal, because that is the only record of the decision maker's thinking.

Irrationality is the last and the hardest. A decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have reached it. Cases are won on it occasionally. Plan on the other grounds.

Six weeks, and what to do inside them

The time limit for a planning judicial review is short. A claim must be filed promptly and in any event within six weeks of the grounds arising, which in practice means six weeks from the grant of permission. Statutory challenges to appeal decisions under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 carry the same six week limit, running from the date of the inspector's decision, and they need the court's permission to proceed.

Six weeks has to cover a great deal. Obtaining the officer report, the decision notice, the consultation responses and any late committee papers. Taking legal advice. Sending a letter before claim under the pre-action protocol and allowing the authority time to respond. Preparing the claim form, statement of facts and grounds, and the bundle.

So the practical sequence starts before the decision. If you think a decision is heading in an unlawful direction, write to the council setting out the point in advance and ask for it to be addressed in the officer report. That letter becomes evidence that the issue was drawn to the authority's attention, and it is far more useful than the same argument raised for the first time afterwards.

Do not wait for the council's response to a complaint before filing. The limit is not extended because you were talking to the monitoring officer.

Standing and the money

Standing is rarely the obstacle. A claimant needs a sufficient interest in the matter, and neighbours, local residents' associations and campaign groups with a genuine local connection are normally accepted.

Costs are the real barrier. The general rule is that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party's costs, and a council defending a claim with an interested party developer alongside it can generate two sets of them. Claims that come within the definition of an environmental claim under the Aarhus Convention benefit from cost caps set by the Civil Procedure Rules, which limit a claimant's exposure and the defendant's recoverable costs. The figures are set by rule and change, so check the current position with a solicitor rather than relying on a number you read somewhere.

There is also section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The court must refuse relief where it appears highly likely that the outcome would not have been substantially different had the conduct complained of not occurred. Many technically good points fail there.

Crowdfunding is common in community cases. Be aware that funders can in principle be exposed to costs orders, and take advice on how the fund is structured.

Section 288 and the appeal decision route

Where the decision you object to is an inspector's appeal decision rather than a council's grant, judicial review is not the route. The challenge is a statutory application to the High Court under section 288, made within six weeks, on the ground that the decision was not within the powers of the Act or that a procedural requirement was not complied with.

In substance the grounds mirror judicial review grounds. The practical differences are the permission requirement, the strict six week limit with no discretion to extend, and the fact that inspectors' decision letters are read benevolently, as documents written by an expert for informed parties rather than as statutes.

Where the challenge concerns environmental assessment, expect the court to look closely at whether the screening or the environmental statement addressed the effects the regulations require, since that is one of the areas where mistakes are true errors of law.

What to do instead, most of the time

For most objectors the honest answer is that judicial review is not the tool. Three alternatives do more work.

Engage before the decision. Written representations that identify the correct policies, ask specific questions of the officer and request a committee determination change more outcomes than litigation does. Reading the applicant's Planning Statement closely and answering its policy claims one by one is the single most effective thing a neighbour can do.

Use the complaint routes. Maladministration, such as a failure to notify or a mishandled consultation, can be taken to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, which cannot overturn a permission but can find fault and recommend a remedy.

Watch the conditions. Once permission exists, the enforceable controls are the conditions and any section 106 obligations, and councils will investigate breaches. Reading the supporting documents and the conditions carefully often achieves more than a challenge would.

This is general guidance, not legal advice, and judicial review is a specialist field with hard deadlines and serious costs risk. Take advice from a solicitor with planning litigation experience as soon as you think a decision may be unlawful, and check the position with your local planning authority before relying on anything here. PlanScope drafts planning documents for applicants and provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.