Planning related applications for judicial review
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 IHBC website.
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:
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.
|2002||(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:
|– 51||– 56||– 68||– 63||– 47||– 54||– 49|
|(= 46%)||(= 48%)||(= 56%)||(= 44%)||(= 39%)||(= 44%)||(= 41%)|
|– 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:
|– 10||– 19||– 29||– 17||– 12||– 11||– 10|
|(= 20%)||(= 34%)||(= 43%)||(= 27%)||(= 26%)||(= 20%)||(= 20%)|
|– 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  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.
 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 [email protected] for future revisions and updates.
--Institute of Historic Building Conservation 10:00, 15 Jun 2016 (BST)
Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki
Featured articles and news
We would like to hear from members with ideas on these matters, and/or any interest in joining an IHBC European Special Interest Group.
The 2nd IHBC Marsh Awards celebrating retired members and successful learners is now open - prizes include £500 and a free place at the IHBC’s Annual School.
Director’s top pick features a call from Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council for a specialist consultant to develop Town Centre Strategies.
Peter Williams, CEO of Better Bankside in London, talks about how these can influence change on a local level in Planning & Building Control Today.
More than half of heritage sites and monuments managed by Historic Environment Scotland (HES) are at risk, according to a recent report.
The review will consider if the system is working appropriately in today’s economy and identify simplification opportunities.
Health and Safety Executive (HSE) concludes there is a role to play for everyone who has a stake or interest in improving health and safety in the workplace.
New social platform and smartphone applications (apps) will be developed by a European consortium to aid the documentation of Europe’s cultural heritage.
Lord Prior of Brampton replaces Jesse Norman, who has become energy minister after just six months in the construction role.
Plans to demolish a 1920s theatre have been approved by councillors amid an angry protest by more than 100 campaigners, according to the BBC.