• Basis: If the development proposal is inconsistent with established local and national planning policies, it can be challenged.

• Example: Proposals outside the settlement boundaries or not included in the local development plan.

• Basis: If the proposed development significantly harms the environment, natural resources, or local biodiversity.

• Example: Developments bypassing full Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA).

• Basis: Lack of proper consultation with local communities and stakeholders.

• Example: Developers controlling the narrative and not informing residents adequately.

• Basis: The local infrastructure cannot support the proposed development.

• Example: Increased traffic congestion, insufficient public services, and utilities.

• Basis: Inaccurate or overstated housing land supply figures by the local authority.

• Example: Discrepancies highlighted by recent appeal decisions.

• Collect detailed information and evidence supporting your claims against the proposed development.

• Examples include environmental impact reports, traffic studies, local plan documents, and community consultation records.

• Seek advice from planning law experts or solicitors specialising in environmental and planning issues.

• Draft a detailed legal document outlining the basis of your objection and the grounds for seeking an injunction.

• Include all supporting evidence and reference relevant sections of the NPPF, local plans, and other statutory documents.

• Submit the injunction application to the appropriate court.

• Pay any required fees and ensure all paperwork is completed accurately.

• Attend court hearings as required.

• Present your case, supported by evidence and legal arguments, to the judge.

• If the court grants the injunction, it will order the local planning authority to halt the approval process or the developer to cease any development activities.

• Monitor compliance with the court’s decision and take further legal action if necessary.

An application for judicial review must be made promptly and in any event within six weeks from the date of the decision being challenged. This time limit is set out in the Civil Procedure Rules.

Even within the six-week period, the application must be made promptly. If there is any delay within this period, the court can refuse permission for the judicial review if it considers the delay unreasonable.

Cases challenging planning decisions are typically heard in the Planning Court, a specialist division of the High Court

The grounds for challenging a planning permission through judicial review include procedural errors, legal errors, and irrationality. This means that there must be a legal reason why the planning permission should not have been granted.

Initially, a judge will review the application to determine if there is an arguable case. If permission is granted, the case will proceed to a full hearing.

If the development has already begun or significant investments have been made, the court may be less inclined to grant an injunction, even if there are grounds for a judicial review.

If there are extraordinary reasons that prevented the application from being made on time, the court might consider it. This could include significant new evidence coming to light that was not previously available.

In rare cases, if the matter has a significant public interest, the court might allow a late application. However, this is very uncommon.

If there were procedural errors in the planning decision that were not apparent within the six-week period, this might be grounds for a late application. Again, this is rare and would need to be substantial.

If the planning permission involves a continuing breach of law or regulation, the court might consider an ongoing challenge. This would still typically need to be addressed promptly.