Planning related applications for judicial review - Revision history

Designing Buildings at 08:17, 18 December 2020

2020-12-18T08:17:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:17, 18 December 2020
Line 11:		Line 11:

	{\|		{\|
−	\|1998	+	\| 1998
−	\|1999	+	\| 1999
−	\|2000	+	\| 2000
−	\|2001	+	\| 2001
−	\|2002	+	\| 2002
−	\|2003	+	\| 2003
−	\|2004	+	\| 2004
	\|-		\|-
−	\|112	+	\| 112
−	\|116	+	\| 116
−	\|121	+	\| 121
−	\|142	+	\| 142
−	\|119	+	\| 119
−	\|122	+	\| 122
−	\|119	+	\| 119
	\|}		\|}

	{\|		{\|
−	\|2005	+	\| 2005
−	\|2006	+	\| 2006
−	\|2007	+	\| 2007
−	\|2008	+	\| 2008
−	\|2009	+	\| 2009
−	\|2010	+	\| 2010
−	\|2011	+	\| 2011
	\|-		\|-
−	\|140	+	\| 140
−	\|142	+	\| 142
−	\|151	+	\| 151
−	\|184	+	\| 184
−	\|165	+	\| 165
−	\|148	+	\| 148
−	\|191	+	\| 191
	\|}		\|}

Line 51:		Line 51:

	{\|		{\|
−	\|2002	+	\| 2002
−	\|(down 16% on 2001)	+	\| (down 16% on 2001)
	\|-		\|-
−	\|2004	+	\| 2004
−	\|(down 2% on 2003, & still down 2% on 2001)	+	\| (down 2% on 2003, & still down 2% on 2001)
	\|-		\|-
−	\|2009	+	\| 2009
−	\|(down 10% on 2008)	+	\| (down 10% on 2008)
	\|-		\|-
−	\|2010	+	\| 2010
−	\|(down 10% on 2009, & down 20% on 2008)	+	\| (down 10% on 2009, & down 20% on 2008)
	\|}		\|}

Line 69:		Line 69:

	{\|		{\|
−	\|1998	+	\| 1998
−	\|1999	+	\| 1999
−	\|2000	+	\| 2000
−	\|2001	+	\| 2001
−	\|2002	+	\| 2002
−	\|2003	+	\| 2003
−	\|2004	+	\| 2004
	\|-		\|-
−	\|– 51	+	\| – 51
−	\|– 56	+	\| – 56
−	\|– 68	+	\| – 68
−	\|– 63	+	\| – 63
−	\|– 47	+	\| – 47
−	\|– 54	+	\| – 54
−	\|– 49	+	\| – 49
	\|-		\|-
−	\|(= 46%)	+	\| (= 46%)
−	\|(= 48%)	+	\| (= 48%)
−	\|(= 56%)	+	\| (= 56%)
−	\|(= 44%)	+	\| (= 44%)
−	\|(= 39%)	+	\| (= 39%)
−	\|(= 44%)	+	\| (= 44%)
−	\|(= 41%)	+	\| (= 41%)
	\|}		\|}

	{\|		{\|
−	\|2005	+	\| 2005
−	\|2006	+	\| 2006
−	\|2007	+	\| 2007
−	\|2008	+	\| 2008
−	\|2009	+	\| 2009
−	\|2010	+	\| 2010
−	\|2011	+	\| 2011
	\|-		\|-
−	\|– 44	+	\| – 44
−	\|– 50	+	\| – 50
−	\|– 51	+	\| – 51
−	\|– 67	+	\| – 67
−	\|– 64	+	\| – 64
−	\|– 46	+	\| – 46
−	\|– 61	+	\| – 61
	\|-		\|-
−	\|(= 31%)	+	\| (= 31%)
−	\|(= 35%)	+	\| (= 35%)
−	\|(= 34%)	+	\| (= 34%)
−	\|(= 36%)	+	\| (= 36%)
−	\|(= 39%)	+	\| (= 39%)
−	\|(= 31%)	+	\| (= 31%)
−	\|(= 32%)	+	\| (= 32%)
	\|}		\|}

Line 127:		Line 127:

	{\|		{\|
−	\|1998	+	\| 1998
−	\|1999	+	\| 1999
−	\|2000	+	\| 2000
−	\|2001	+	\| 2001
−	\|2002	+	\| 2002
−	\|2003	+	\| 2003
−	\|2004	+	\| 2004
	\|-		\|-
−	\|– 10	+	\| – 10
−	\|– 19	+	\| – 19
−	\|– 29	+	\| – 29
−	\|– 17	+	\| – 17
−	\|– 12	+	\| – 12
−	\|– 11	+	\| – 11
−	\|– 10	+	\| – 10
	\|-		\|-
−	\|(= 20%)	+	\| (= 20%)
−	\|(= 34%)	+	\| (= 34%)
−	\|(= 43%)	+	\| (= 43%)
−	\|(= 27%)	+	\| (= 27%)
−	\|(= 26%)	+	\| (= 26%)
−	\|(= 20%)	+	\| (= 20%)
−	\|(= 20%)	+	\| (= 20%)
	\|}		\|}

	{\|		{\|
−	\|2005	+	\| 2005
−	\|2006	+	\| 2006
−	\|2007	+	\| 2007
−	\|2008	+	\| 2008
−	\|2009	+	\| 2009
−	\|2010	+	\| 2010
−	\|2011	+	\| 2011
	\|-		\|-
−	\|– 11	+	\| – 11
−	\|– 7	+	\| – 7
−	\|– 17	+	\| – 17
−	\|– 14	+	\| – 14
−	\|– 15	+	\| – 15
−	\|– 17	+	\| – 17
−	\|– 6	+	\| – 6
	\|-		\|-
−	\|(= 25%)	+	\| (= 25%)
−	\|(= 14%)	+	\| (= 14%)
−	\|(= 33%)	+	\| (= 33%)
−	\|(= 21%)	+	\| (= 21%)
−	\|(= 23%)	+	\| (= 23%)
−	\|(= 37%)	+	\| (= 37%)
−	\|(= 10%)	+	\| (= 10%)
	\|}		\|}

Line 193:		Line 193:
	--[[User:Institute_of_Historic_Building_Conservation\|Institute of Historic Building Conservation]] 10:00, 15 Jun 2016 (BST)		--[[User:Institute_of_Historic_Building_Conservation\|Institute of Historic Building Conservation]] 10:00, 15 Jun 2016 (BST)

−	~~= Find out more =~~	+	= Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki =
−		+
−	=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===	+

	* Judicial review.		* Judicial review.
Line 209:		Line 207:
	* Recovered planning appeal.		* Recovered planning appeal.

−	[[Category:Conservation]]	+	[[Category:Conservation]] [[Category:DCN_Definition]] [[Category:DCN_Guidance]] [[Category:DCN_Research,_Development_and_Innovation]]

Institute of Historic Building Conservation at 14:47, 21 June 2016

2016-06-21T14:47:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:47, 21 June 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	This article was created by The Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC). It was written by Bob Kindred MBE, BA, MRTPI, IHBC and published in June 2013. You can see the original article on the [http://ihbconline.co.uk/toolbox/research_notes/judicial.html IHBC website].
		+
		+	-----
	This Research Note looks at the role and uptake of Judicial Review (JR) applications in relation planning and any potential trends.		This Research Note looks at the role and uptake of Judicial Review (JR) applications in relation planning and any potential trends.

Line 187:		Line 190:
	-----		-----
	This is one of a series of occasional IHBC Research Notes published by The Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC). The Notes necessarily reflect knowledge and practice at the time they were developed, while the IHBC always welcomes new case examples, feedback and comment to [mailto:research@ihbc.org.uk research@ihbc.org.uk] for future revisions and updates.		This is one of a series of occasional IHBC Research Notes published by The Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC). The Notes necessarily reflect knowledge and practice at the time they were developed, while the IHBC always welcomes new case examples, feedback and comment to [mailto:research@ihbc.org.uk research@ihbc.org.uk] for future revisions and updates.
−
−	It was written by Bob Kindred MBE, BA, MRTPI, IHBC and originally published in June 2013. You can see the original article on the [http://ihbconline.co.uk/toolbox/research_notes/judicial.html IHBC website].

	--[[User:Institute_of_Historic_Building_Conservation\|Institute of Historic Building Conservation]] 10:00, 15 Jun 2016 (BST)		--[[User:Institute_of_Historic_Building_Conservation\|Institute of Historic Building Conservation]] 10:00, 15 Jun 2016 (BST)

Institute of Historic Building Conservation at 09:01, 15 June 2016

2016-06-15T09:01:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:01, 15 June 2016
Line 190:		Line 190:
	It was written by Bob Kindred MBE, BA, MRTPI, IHBC and originally published in June 2013. You can see the original article on the [http://ihbconline.co.uk/toolbox/research_notes/judicial.html IHBC website].		It was written by Bob Kindred MBE, BA, MRTPI, IHBC and originally published in June 2013. You can see the original article on the [http://ihbconline.co.uk/toolbox/research_notes/judicial.html IHBC website].

−	--[[User:~~Institute of Historic Building Conservation~~\|Institute of Historic Building Conservation]] 10:00, 15 Jun 2016 (BST)	+	--[[User:Institute_of_Historic_Building_Conservation\|Institute of Historic Building Conservation]] 10:00, 15 Jun 2016 (BST)

	= Find out more =		= Find out more =
Line 198:		Line 198:
	* Judicial review.		* Judicial review.
	* National Planning Policy Framework.		* National Planning Policy Framework.
		+	* Planning appeal.
	* Planning court.		* Planning court.
	* Planning enforcement.		* Planning enforcement.

Institute of Historic Building Conservation: Protected "Planning related applications for judicial review" ([edit=author] (indefinite) [move=author] (indefinite))

2016-06-15T09:00:59Z

Protected "Planning related applications for judicial review" ([edit=author] (indefinite) [move=author] (indefinite))

← Older revision

Revision as of 09:00, 15 June 2016

Institute of Historic Building Conservation at 09:00, 15 June 2016

2016-06-15T09:00:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:00, 15 June 2016
Line 190:		Line 190:
	It was written by Bob Kindred MBE, BA, MRTPI, IHBC and originally published in June 2013. You can see the original article on the [http://ihbconline.co.uk/toolbox/research_notes/judicial.html IHBC website].		It was written by Bob Kindred MBE, BA, MRTPI, IHBC and originally published in June 2013. You can see the original article on the [http://ihbconline.co.uk/toolbox/research_notes/judicial.html IHBC website].

−	--[[User:~~Institute_of_Historic_Building_Conservation~~\|Institute of Historic Building Conservation]]	+	--[[User:Institute of Historic Building Conservation\|Institute of Historic Building Conservation]] 10:00, 15 Jun 2016 (BST)

	= Find out more =		= Find out more =

Designing Buildings at 08:59, 15 June 2016

2016-06-15T08:59:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:59, 15 June 2016
Line 8:		Line 8:

	{\|		{\|
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|1998	+	\|1998
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|1999	+	\|1999
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2000	+	\|2000
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2001	+	\|2001
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2002	+	\|2002
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2003	+	\|2003
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2004	+	\|2004
	\|-		\|-
	\|112		\|112
Line 24:		Line 24:
	\|119		\|119
	\|}		\|}
−
−

	{\|		{\|
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2005	+	\|2005
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2006	+	\|2006
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2007	+	\|2007
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2008	+	\|2008
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2009	+	\|2009
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2010	+	\|2010
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2011	+	\|2011
	\|-		\|-
	\|140		\|140
Line 44:		Line 42:
	\|191		\|191
	\|}		\|}
−
−
−
−

	The number of planning cases is trivial, representing only about 7% or 8% (9% at most, in some years). As a proportion of all JR applications, planning-related JR applications account for less than 2% of the overall total.		The number of planning cases is trivial, representing only about 7% or 8% (9% at most, in some years). As a proportion of all JR applications, planning-related JR applications account for less than 2% of the overall total.
Line 54:		Line 48:

	{\|		{\|
−	~~\|width="50%"~~\|2002	+	\|2002
−	~~\|width="50%"~~\|(down 16% on 2001)	+	\|(down 16% on 2001)
	\|-		\|-
	\|2004		\|2004
Line 72:		Line 66:

	{\|		{\|
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|1998	+	\|1998
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|1999	+	\|1999
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2000	+	\|2000
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2001	+	\|2001
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2002	+	\|2002
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2003	+	\|2003
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2004	+	\|2004
	\|-		\|-
	\|– 51		\|– 51
Line 96:		Line 90:
	\|(= 41%)		\|(= 41%)
	\|}		\|}
−
−

	{\|		{\|
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2005	+	\|2005
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2006	+	\|2006
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2007	+	\|2007
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2008	+	\|2008
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2009	+	\|2009
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2010	+	\|2010
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2011	+	\|2011
	\|-		\|-
	\|– 44		\|– 44
Line 132:		Line 124:

	{\|		{\|
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|1998	+	\|1998
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|1999	+	\|1999
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2000	+	\|2000
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2001	+	\|2001
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2002	+	\|2002
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2003	+	\|2003
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2004	+	\|2004
	\|-		\|-
	\|– 10		\|– 10
Line 156:		Line 148:
	\|(= 20%)		\|(= 20%)
	\|}		\|}
−
−

	{\|		{\|
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2005	+	\|2005
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2006	+	\|2006
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2007	+	\|2007
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2008	+	\|2008
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2009	+	\|2009
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2010	+	\|2010
−	~~\|width="14%"~~\|2011	+	\|2011
	\|-		\|-
	\|– 11		\|– 11
Line 194:		Line 184:

	[1] The Aarhus Convention is a multilateral environmental agreement which came into force on 30 October 2001 through which the opportunities for citizens to access environmental information are increased and transparent and reliable regulation procedure is secured.		[1] The Aarhus Convention is a multilateral environmental agreement which came into force on 30 October 2001 through which the opportunities for citizens to access environmental information are increased and transparent and reliable regulation procedure is secured.
−
−

	-----		-----

Designing Buildings: Created page with "This Research Note looks at the role and uptake of Judicial Review (JR) applications in relation planning and any potential trends. The Prime Minister indicated at the CBI in la..."

2016-06-15T08:58:44Z

Created page with "This Research Note looks at the role and uptake of Judicial Review (JR) applications in relation planning and any potential trends. The Prime Minister indicated at the CBI in la..."

New page

This Research Note looks at the role and uptake of Judicial Review (JR) applications in relation planning and any potential trends.

The Prime Minister indicated at the CBI in late 2011 that applications for judicial review on planning or infrastructure proposals were a ‘growth industry’; an impediment to economic recovery and that many applications were ‘hopeless’ and that it should be more expensive and difficult to apply for one. Overall there were 11,200 JR cases of all categories in 2011.

Frank Dobson MP (Lab) subsequently obtained more detailed figures from the Ministry of Justice about judicial reviews related to planning or infrastructure proposals in each year since 1998; how many applications were allowed to proceed to a hearing and how many were granted in a written answer to a parliamentary question on 26 November. These figures appear not to have found a wide audience.

The figures since 1998 relating to the category of ‘other’ cases (i.e. other than immigration/asylum and criminal cases) relating to planning were:

{|
|width="14%"|1998
|width="14%"|1999
|width="14%"|2000
|width="14%"|2001
|width="14%"|2002
|width="14%"|2003
|width="14%"|2004
|-
|112
|116
|121
|142
|119
|122
|119
|}

{|
|width="14%"|2005
|width="14%"|2006
|width="14%"|2007
|width="14%"|2008
|width="14%"|2009
|width="14%"|2010
|width="14%"|2011
|-
|140
|142
|151
|184
|165
|148
|191
|}

The number of planning cases is trivial, representing only about 7% or 8% (9% at most, in some years). As a proportion of all JR applications, planning-related JR applications account for less than 2% of the overall total.

No clear conclusions can be drawn about any upward trend in the number of applications as these have fluctuated over 14 years, for example.

{|
|width="50%"|2002
|width="50%"|(down 16% on 2001)
|-
|2004
|(down 2% on 2003, & still down 2% on 2001)
|-
|2009
|(down 10% on 2008)
|-
|2010
|(down 10% on 2009, & down 20% on 2008)
|}

Although the 191 planning-related JR applications in 2011 appear to represent a sharp increase over 2010, the figures for 2012 might again be lower. Nevertheless, overall the numbers are still very small.

In relation to an alleged increase rise in ‘hopeless’ JR applications, those which were allowed to proceed were:

{|
|width="14%"|1998
|width="14%"|1999
|width="14%"|2000
|width="14%"|2001
|width="14%"|2002
|width="14%"|2003
|width="14%"|2004
|-
|– 51
|– 56
|– 68
|– 63
|– 47
|– 54
|– 49
|-
|(= 46%)
|(= 48%)
|(= 56%)
|(= 44%)
|(= 39%)
|(= 44%)
|(= 41%)
|}

{|
|width="14%"|2005
|width="14%"|2006
|width="14%"|2007
|width="14%"|2008
|width="14%"|2009
|width="14%"|2010
|width="14%"|2011
|-
|– 44
|– 50
|– 51
|– 67
|– 64
|– 46
|– 61
|-
|(= 31%)
|(= 35%)
|(= 34%)
|(= 36%)
|(= 39%)
|(= 31%)
|(= 32%)
|}

(the figure in brackets is the percentage of total planning-related JR cases per year).

In most years, at least a third of planning-related JR applications were given permission to proceed, a much higher proportion than the average for other types. No trends about allegedly ‘hopeless’ cases frustrating development proposals are evident (and there is an already effective vetting process to reject unarguable cases).

The success rate of cases, ie where planning-related JR applications were granted, were as follows:

{|
|width="14%"|1998
|width="14%"|1999
|width="14%"|2000
|width="14%"|2001
|width="14%"|2002
|width="14%"|2003
|width="14%"|2004
|-
|– 10
|– 19
|– 29
|– 17
|– 12
|– 11
|– 10
|-
|(= 20%)
|(= 34%)
|(= 43%)
|(= 27%)
|(= 26%)
|(= 20%)
|(= 20%)
|}

{|
|width="14%"|2005
|width="14%"|2006
|width="14%"|2007
|width="14%"|2008
|width="14%"|2009
|width="14%"|2010
|width="14%"|2011
|-
|– 11
|– 7
|– 17
|– 14
|– 15
|– 17
|– 6
|-
|(= 25%)
|(= 14%)
|(= 33%)
|(= 21%)
|(= 23%)
|(= 37%)
|(= 10%)
|}

(the figure in brackets is the percentage success rate, compared with the number of cases given permission for a substantive hearing)

Again, no discernible trend is evident and each case must have been arguable or it would not have been given permission to proceed.

One final point is that the Prime Minister considers it should be made more expensive to apply for judicial review, however this could be in breach of Aarhus Convention [1] and it was precisely in order to ensure compliance with the Convention that the Ministry of Justice put forward proposals to limit the costs in environment-related judicial review cases.

Notes

[1] The Aarhus Convention is a multilateral environmental agreement which came into force on 30 October 2001 through which the opportunities for citizens to access environmental information are increased and transparent and reliable regulation procedure is secured.

-----
This is one of a series of occasional IHBC Research Notes published by The Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC). The Notes necessarily reflect knowledge and practice at the time they were developed, while the IHBC always welcomes new case examples, feedback and comment to [mailto:research@ihbc.org.uk research@ihbc.org.uk] for future revisions and updates.

It was written by Bob Kindred MBE, BA, MRTPI, IHBC and originally published in June 2013. You can see the original article on the [http://ihbconline.co.uk/toolbox/research_notes/judicial.html IHBC website].

--[[User:Institute_of_Historic_Building_Conservation|Institute of Historic Building Conservation]]

= Find out more =

=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===

* Judicial review.
* National Planning Policy Framework.
* Planning court.
* Planning enforcement.
* Planning fees.
* Planning inspectorate.
* Planning objection.
* Planning obligations.
* Planning permission.
* Recovered planning appeal.

[[Category:Conservation]]