Planning Law Judicial Review Solicitors

All planning JRs must be started within 6 weeks from the date of the issue of the planning permission.

For non-planning cases the time limit is such that a claim must be brought promptly and in any event within 3 months.

The time limits are strictly applied, so if you are thinking of challenging a planning permission or other decision, you must not delay and should seek legal advice immediately.  It is very frustrating for lawyers to be presented with a good claim which cannot be brought because it is out of time!

The first stage in the JR procedure is what is known as the pre-action protocol (PAP) letter to the proposed defendant setting out the draft grounds for judicial review and asking them to consent to judgment. This is known as a pre-action protocol (or PAP) letter.  The letter would normally be sent to the Council and the developer with a request that they respond substantively within 14 days.

It is also possible to request key documentation that may have for example been withheld by the defendant until that point. This correspondence is designed to allow both sides to understand the other’s position and to see if there is the potential to resolve the dispute without issuing proceedings. Before a claim is issued in court there is no risk of being liable for the costs of the Council even if you engage them in correspondence.

If, following the pre-action stage, the defendant has not capitulated but your legal team considers that there are good prospects of success, the next stage is to issue the claim at Court and apply for permission to bring judicial review proceedings. The test for obtaining permission to proceed is that you have an arguable case. The Court will seek to weed out cases where it cannot see any arguable error of law.

The judicial review proceedings will comprise a claim form (including an application for a costs capping order), a statement of facts and the grounds for judicial review (generally drafted by a barrister who may have already drafted the grounds attached to the PAP letter and essentially re-running the arguments in that letter as amended in light of the Council’s pre-action response), a witness statement exhibiting relevant documents, a bundle of legal authorities and a list of essential reading for the judge. We will then serve this on the Council with a copy to the developer, as an interested party. This must be done promptly and in the case of a challenge to a planning permission at the latest within 6 weeks of the decision you wish to challenge.

The defendant will then have 21 days to file an acknowledgement of service setting out the summary grounds for contesting the claim. We will then respond to the summary grounds as soon as possible.

A single judge will then consider the application for permission papers without a hearing to decide whether the claimant has an arguable case.  If they considers that the claimant does, they will grant permission to bring judicial review proceedings; if not, they will refuse the application. The judge may also certify the application as ‘totally without merit’ at this stage if they consider that the claim is bound to fail no matter how they look at it.

If permission for JR is refused and the application is not certified ‘totally without merit’, the claimant has the right to have its application heard at an oral hearing. This involves preparing grounds for renewal and a skeleton argument setting out why the claimant believes that the judge who refused permission on the papers was wrong to do so. The application will then be heard before a single judge at a permission hearing of approximately 30 minutes at which the claimant will try to persuade the judge that its case is arguable. The other parties do not have to attend this hearing but often do. The judge will give judgment on the day as to whether they consider that permission should be granted or refused. If permission is refused the claimant has recourse to the Court of Appeal.

If the permission for JR is refused on the papers and the judge certifies the application as ‘totally without merit’, the claimant may not apply to have their application heard at an oral hearing. The claimant, if they wish to continue with the claim may only apply to the Court of Appeal to obtain permission for JR.

You would typically bring a statutory review (“SR”) to challenge the decision to grant planning permission by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government or his or inspector.  So if the local planning authority has refused planning permission, but the developer has successfully appealed this refusal to the Secretary of State, then you would need to challenge this by way of a SR.

Again, the claimant would be seeking to quash the grant of planning permission because there has been some unlawfulness in the procedure, for example failure to provide reasons where they are required; factual or legal errors; taking into account something one should not have done and vice versa.  A SR does not look at the merits of whether the decision was a good one or not; it is whether the decision was lawfully taken.

The first stage is to issue the claim at Court and apply for permission to bring statutory review proceedings. This will comprise a claim form together with details of claim (generally to be drafted by a barrister); witness statements setting out any relevant facts, exhibiting relevant documents and supporting any application for a costs capping order, a bundle of authorities, and a list of essential reading.

The defendants will be the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the local planning authority (although they will likely not take an active part in proceedings as they refused planning permission in the first place) and the developer. The claim must be issued and served on the defendants within six weeks of the date of the decision so there is even less time in practice than in JRs.

The defendants will have 21 days from service upon them of the claim to acknowledge service indicating whether they wish to contest the claim and, if so, setting out their summary grounds for doing so. We will then, if necessary, respond to these summary grounds as soon as possible (although there is no express provision for doing so).

A single judge will then consider the application for permission on the papers without a hearing to decide whether the claimant has an arguable case. The judge may also certify the application as ‘totally without merit’ at this stage if they consider that the claim is bound to fail no matter how they look at it.

If permission for statutory review is refused and the application is not certified ‘totally without merit’, the claimant has the right to have its application heard at an oral hearing. This involves preparing grounds for renewal and a skeleton argument setting out why the claimant believes that the judge who refused permission on the papers was wrong to do so. The application will then be heard before a single judge at a permission hearing of approximately 30 minutes at which the claimant will try to persuade the judge that its case is arguable. The defendants do not have to attend this hearing but often do. The judge will give judgment on the day as to whether they consider that permission should be granted or refused. If permission is refused the claimant has recourse to the Court of Appeal.

If the permission for statutory review is refused on the papers and the judge certifies the application as ‘totally without merit’, the claimant may not apply to have their application heard at an oral hearing. The claimant, if they wish to continue with the claim may only apply to the Court of Appeal to obtain permission for statutory review.