Judicial review and High Court planning challenges

Judicial review and statutory High Court challenges examine whether a planning decision was lawful. They are not another planning appeal. A judge will not normally decide whether your extension should be approved, how much weight to give an objection or which design is preferable.

The first questions are: who made the decision, what legal power did they use, and when was the decision made? Those answers determine the court procedure and deadline. A council’s grant of permission, a planning appeal decision and an enforcement appeal decision do not all follow the same route.

This guide covers England and helps you choose the right starting point. For the earlier planning appeal stage, see our Planning Appeals guide. Obtain specialist legal advice immediately if you are considering court proceedings.

Which High Court route applies?

The three principal routes are compared below. These are starting points, not a substitute for reading the complete decision and checking the applicable legislation.

Read the detailed guides to Section 288 planning challenges and Section 289 enforcement appeal challenges for the relevant parties, permission requirements and service rules.

What judicial review can and cannot do

The Civil Procedure Rules describe judicial review as a claim to review the lawfulness of a decision, action or failure to act in exercising a public function. It is the usual route for an objector challenging a council’s grant of permission because there is no ordinary third-party planning appeal against that grant.

A legal challenge might concern a misinterpretation of legislation, failure to consider a legally relevant matter, procedural unfairness, inadequate reasons or irrationality. A defective ownership notification can raise a legal issue, but an error does not automatically invalidate permission without considering the legislation, facts and available remedy.

Disagreement is different. The Inspector or council normally decides the weight to give the evidence and competing planning considerations. The court will not repeat that balance because you or another planner would have reached a different conclusion.

The demanding irrationality test is explained in our Wednesbury case summary. Courts allow decision-makers substantial room for planning judgement. A strong challenge identifies the legal defect and why it matters, rather than simply calling the result unreasonable.

Ordinary judicial review: permission, standing and timing

You need the court’s permission and a sufficient interest in the matter. This is often called standing. A directly affected neighbour or an involved local group may qualify, but it depends on the circumstances. An interested party is someone directly affected by the claim, commonly the developer whose permission is being challenged.

For decisions of a local planning authority or the Secretary of State under the planning Acts, CPR 54.5(5) normally requires filing within six weeks after the grounds first arose. For a challenge to a grant of permission itself, time normally runs from the formal grant rather than the earlier committee resolution, as explained in Burkett. Do not assume the general three-month judicial review period applies.

Ordinary judicial review normally requires service on the defendant and any interested party within seven days after issue under CPR 54.7. That differs from section 288’s service timetable. The court can extend a judicial review time limit, but the parties cannot do so simply by agreement, and an extension should never be assumed.

The Gerber case illustrates the danger of a late challenge after others have relied on permission. Its older procedural context matters, but its warning about delay and prejudice remains useful.

The judicial review pre-action protocol normally involves writing to the proposed defendant before proceedings. Urgency may require a different approach. A letter, complaint or negotiation does not stop the court deadline. Do not wait for a reply if that would put timely proceedings at risk.

Section 288 and Section 289 in plain English

Statutory review means Parliament has created a particular court route for specified decisions. Section 288 covers many Inspector and Secretary of State decisions, including ordinary planning appeals. It is a review of legality, despite often being described informally as an appeal.

A point of law is a legal error rather than a disagreement about the development’s planning merits. Section 289 provides this form of challenge for enforcement appeal decisions. The original appellant, council and certain people with an interest in the land may apply, subject to permission.

The section 177 exception matters. An enforcement decision granting planning permission under section 177(1)(a), or discharging a condition or limitation under section 177(1)(b), falls within section 288. One enforcement appeal letter can therefore involve different legal outcomes and different challenge routes. Never apply a blanket 28-day rule to every enforcement appeal.

What happens if you win?

Success usually means the decision must be reconsidered lawfully. On section 288 review, the court may quash the decision, meaning it is set aside. Under section 289 the procedure is to remit the matter for rehearing and determination in accordance with the court’s opinion. Neither route guarantees the planning outcome you wanted.

Judicial review remedies are discretionary. Section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 also requires refusal of permission or relief in specified circumstances where it is highly likely the outcome would not have been substantially different, subject to an exceptional public interest provision. A technical error is not necessarily enough.

Do not assume proceedings stop development or enforcement automatically. Interim remedies, enforcement-notice suspension and the court’s powers differ between routes. The specialist guides explain those distinctions.

Other specialist planning challenges

Local plan and other development plan document challenges have their own statutory route under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Development consent orders for major infrastructure use section 118 of the Planning Act 2008. Neighbourhood planning challenges involve section 61N and, for plans, section 38C of the 2004 Act.

Each has its own scope, trigger date and procedure. Listed building and hazardous substances decisions also have separate statutory provisions. These are not interchangeable with ordinary judicial review or sections 288 and 289.

Is a High Court challenge worthwhile?

Ask what winning would achieve before committing to litigation. If an adequate statutory appeal remains available, the court will normally expect that route to be used. A fresh planning application can sometimes achieve more than an expensive challenge that only produces another refusal.

Budget for court fees, your own legal team and possible liability for the other side’s costs. In qualifying Aarhus environmental claims, CPR 46.26 provides default adverse-cost limits of £5,000 for an individual acting only as an individual, £10,000 for other claimants and £35,000 for defendants. Qualification, financial disclosure and possible variation or removal of limits require advice; the limits do not cap your own lawyers’ fees.

1. Get the complete decision and establish the exact court route and deadline
2. Ask a specialist planning solicitor to assess the legal grounds and likely practical result
3. Check service requirements, funding and any need for urgent interim relief

Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. We can help explain the planning background and assemble the planning evidence, but do not provide High Court legal representation. Obtain specialist legal advice about bringing or defending proceedings.

Key sources

Read CPR Part 54, Planning Court Practice Direction 54D and section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The detailed guides link to the route-specific legislation.

Other Planning Appeal Sections

Judicial Review Page Updated: 1st October 2026