Judicial review of planning decisions

Scope of judicial review in planning matters

A claim for judicial review is defined in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), SI 1998/3132, Pt 54 as a claim to review the lawfulness of an enactment, or a decision, action or failure to act in relation to the exercise of a public function. Decisions, actions or failures to take action in relation to the exercise of a public function are in principle subject to judicial review.

This encompasses many planning decisions and actions by local planning authorities (LPAs) and the Secretary of State which can be challenged in the courts by way of judicial review if the decision taken was unlawful, including but not limited to:

  1. decisions by LPAs granting planning permission, reserved matters approvals, approvals of conditions and prior approval under permitted development rights

  2. decisions by LPAs to modify or discharge a planning obligation pursuant to applications under section 106A or 106B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990)

  3. decisions relating to development consent orders and national policy statements under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008)

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Planning News

High Court gives guidance on the new duty to ‘seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty’ of AONB for planning authorities (CPRE Kent v SSHCLG)

Planning analysis: Section 85(A1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRWA 2000) came into effect on 26 December 2023 following amendments to that Act made by section 245 of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA 2023). The provision requires relevant authorities to ‘seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty’ of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (‘AONB’) when exercising functions affecting such land. This case concerned a challenge to the November 2024 decision of the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘the Secretary of State’) to grant planning permission for the construction of 165 dwellings and associated works in the High Weald AONB. The grounds of challenge were that the Secretary of State had breached the CRWA 2000, s 85(A1) duty (Ground 1) or alternatively, had given inadequate reasons for concluding that the duty had been complied with (Ground 2). The main issue for the High Court was whether the words ‘seek to further’ contained in the amended section 85(A1) duty had altered the substance of the duty so as to require a decision-maker to refuse planning permission for development if it is found that the proposal would cause harm to an AONB by failing to conserve or enhance its natural beauty. In dismissing the claim and upholding the Secretary of State’s decision, the judge provided guidance on the requirements of the CRWA 2000, s 85(A1) duty in the context of planning decisions affecting AONBs. Written by Max Millington, barrister at Cornerstone Barristers.

View Planning by content type :

Popular documents