Section 288 planning challenges

A Section 288 challenge asks the High Court to examine whether a planning decision was lawful. It is most commonly used after an Inspector or the Secretary of State has decided a planning appeal. It is not another opportunity to argue that the development is a good or bad idea.

The usual deadline is six weeks beginning with the day after the decision. Filing the claim and serving it on the required people are separate tasks, and both normally need to be completed within that period. Get specialist legal advice as soon as the decision arrives.

This guide covers England. Start with our judicial review and High Court planning challenges overview if you are unsure which route applies, or return to the Planning Appeals guide.

What is Section 288?

Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides a statutory review: a court procedure created by an Act of Parliament for questioning specified decisions and orders. The court checks legality, including whether the decision-maker used the correct legal approach and followed a fair process.

The list of decisions is principally in section 284. That provision also restricts other ways of challenging their validity. You cannot safely choose ordinary judicial review simply because it sounds more familiar.

Which planning decisions does it cover?

Common examples include decisions on planning appeals under section 78, called-in applications under section 77, direct applications under section 62A and lawful development certificate appeals under section 195. Section 284 also includes specified purchase notice, tree preservation, advertisement, Crown development and biodiversity gain plan decisions, together with certain orders.

A council’s own grant of planning permission usually falls under ordinary judicial review instead. Listed building consent decisions have their own legislation, including section 63 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. A combined decision letter may therefore require more than one statutory provision.

The Section 177 overlap in enforcement appeals

An enforcement appeal is not automatically a Section 289 case. Under section 284(3)(e), an Inspector’s decision to grant planning permission under section 177(1)(a), or discharge a condition or limitation under section 177(1)(b), falls within the Section 288 regime.

For example, if an Inspector grants permission on ground (a), a council challenging that grant normally needs the six-week Section 288 route. A challenge to a different legal outcome in the same enforcement decision may fall under section 289. The operative wording matters more than the heading on the letter.

Who can bring a Section 288 challenge?

The Act permits a “person aggrieved” to apply. This means someone with a sufficient connection to the decision and grievance about it, not simply anyone who dislikes the result. Applicants, landowners and people who participated substantially in the planning process may qualify. Whether an objector has standing depends on the circumstances; making an objection does not automatically settle the question.

Section 288(2) separately allows the authority directly concerned to apply. A council can therefore challenge an Inspector’s decision allowing an appeal, but must identify a legal defect. Losing a planning argument does not itself provide grounds for court proceedings.

When does the six-week period start?

For an appeal decision, time runs from the decision, normally identified by the date of the decision letter. It does not restart when you read the letter or obtain legal advice. Section 288(4B) specifies six weeks beginning with the day after the relevant event:

• For an action, the date the action is taken, including an appeal decision
• For a relevant costs order, the date the order is made
• For a section 97 order taking effect under section 99 without confirmation, the date it takes effect
• For other orders within the provision, the date the order is confirmed

The statutory period for bringing the claim cannot be extended. A complaint to the Inspectorate, discussions with the council or a pre-action letter do not stop it. Have a solicitor calculate the deadline and allow time for issue and valid service.

Permission, filing and service

You need the High Court’s permission, also called leave, before the substantive challenge proceeds. Section 288(4A) states: An application under this section may not be made without the leave of the High Court. Permission is the initial screening stage, not a decision that you have won.

Under Practice Direction 54D, the Part 8 claim form must be filed in the Administrative Court within the statutory period and marked for the Planning Court. It requests permission and sets out the grounds, facts and remedy, supported by the decision and relevant evidence.

Filing means lodging the documents with the court. Service means formally delivering them to the people who must receive them using a legally valid method. Do not assume the court will serve the claim for you.

Paragraphs 4.8 to 4.11 require service on the appropriate Minister or department and the authority directly concerned. Where that authority is the claimant, the rule instead requires service on every person who would be entitled to apply if aggrieved. Your solicitor must identify the required parties, including the successful applicant or developer where appropriate.

An interested party is someone whose interests are directly affected by the challenge, often the person benefiting from the permission. Being described as an interested party does not make service optional. The claim form must normally be served within the same six-week period as filing.

Can the court extend time for service?

Do not confuse the non-extendable statutory filing period with the separate rules governing service. The court has a narrow power to extend time for service. Retrospective applications face strict requirements, including taking all reasonable steps to serve in time and applying promptly. A strong planning argument or lack of prejudice does not excuse defective service.

In Arun District Council v Secretary of State [2026] EWHC 1172 (Admin), the council filed in time but attempted to serve developers through a former planning consultant who had not been authorised to accept service. The court refused an extension after service was completed 32 days late. The case illustrates why the actual recipient and method matter.

What grounds can succeed?

Potential grounds include misinterpreting legislation or policy, overlooking a legally material consideration, procedural unfairness, inadequate reasons and irrationality. A procedural breach must meet the applicable legal test, including substantial prejudice under section 288(5)(b) where relevant.

Disagreeing with the Inspector’s assessment of character, housing benefits or the weight of evidence is not enough. The judge does not carry out the planning balance again. New evidence that simply improves the original planning case will not normally turn disagreement into a legal error.

Costs orders and the cost of proceedings

Section 288(1A) also covers a relevant costs order connected with an order or action within Section 288. It can be challenged separately from the main decision. The costs decision has its own relevant date. Do not assume every enforcement appeal costs decision uses this route: the underlying decision and statutory connection must be checked.

High Court costs are different from an award of costs at a planning appeal. You face court fees, your legal team’s fees and potential liability for the other side’s costs. Ask about funding, insurance and any available Aarhus environmental costs protection before instructing substantial work. Such protection is not automatic and does not remove your own legal bill.

What happens if the challenge succeeds?

The court may quash the unlawful decision, meaning it is set aside. The planning matter will ordinarily return for redetermination in accordance with the judgment. That does not guarantee permission or refusal: the decision-maker may lawfully reach the same result again.

Bringing a Section 288 claim does not automatically suspend the decision. Section 288 provides interim powers to suspend specified orders or actions, subject to exceptions including tree preservation orders. Ask your lawyer whether urgent interim relief is needed before relying on a permission or assuming development must stop.

Practical first steps

1. Send a specialist planning solicitor the complete decision and any separate costs order immediately
2. Confirm the correct statutory route, claimant and deadline
3. Identify the legal error and what a successful challenge would achieve
4. Confirm every recipient, service address and valid method of service
5. Agree costs, funding and any urgent application before time runs out

Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. We can assist with the planning history, policy and evidence, but do not provide legal representation in High Court proceedings. This page is general information and requires specialist legal advice for an individual case.

Primary legislation

Read section 288 alongside section 284 and the Planning Court procedure linked above. Check the current text and commencement information before relying on a provision.

Other Planning Appeal Sections

Section 288 Page Created: 1st October 2026