Judicial review is a court process concerned with the lawfulness of public decision-making.

It is not a further planning merits appeal for campaigners who disagree with the weight given to landscape, renewable-energy benefits or another planning consideration.

Potential grounds can concern legal error, procedural unfairness, failure to take account of a legally relevant matter, taking account of an irrelevant matter, or other public-law error.

Whether a ground actually exists is a legal question dependent on the decision, statutory regime and facts.

Time limits can be very short.

Some planning and infrastructure challenges in England and Wales have specific six-week periods, while different procedures and jurisdictions can have different routes and rules. Anyone seriously considering a challenge should obtain specialist legal advice immediately after the decision rather than waiting for the deadline to approach.

A campaign should preserve the record.

Keep the decision, reasons, examination documents, procedural notices and correspondence. Identify the alleged legal error precisely. 'The decision-maker ignored us' is not enough if the report actually considered the issue and lawfully reached a different planning judgement.

Sources and further information

Planning Act 2008, section 118 - legal challenges

UK Government - Planning Act 2008 guidance on the decision-making stage

Civil Procedure Rules - Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review (England and Wales)

Welsh Government - Calling-in planning applications: guidance

Last checked: 26 September 2026

Record the decision date and obtain the complete decision package immediately.

Preserve the decision notice or consent, reasons, officer or reporter report, examination material, committee papers, minutes, relevant policies, conditions and the final approved documents. Legal challenge periods can be much shorter than ordinary civil limitation periods.

Do not spend the first days trying to re-run the planning campaign.

A court challenge is concerned with legality rather than whether more people oppose the development. Petitions, additional objections and social-media activity do not extend a statutory court deadline.

Write down the suspected legal error in neutral terms.

Identify what the decision-maker is said to have done incorrectly, the document or event showing it, and why it could have mattered to the decision. Separate that from disagreement with the planning judgement.

Check the exact statutory route before calculating a deadline.

Different decisions can be challenged by judicial review or by a specialist statutory challenge. The court, procedure and time limit depend on the jurisdiction and decision.

Seek specialist public-law or planning-law advice urgently.

Do not wait until the final days of a challenge period. A solicitor or advocate/barrister needs time to assess standing, arguability, remedy, procedure, costs and any pre-action requirements.

Sources and further information

Civil Procedure Rules - Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review

GOV.UK - Planning Act 2008: decision-making stage and legal challenges

Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service - Court of Session

Department of Justice NI - Judicial review

Last checked: 26 September 2026

A court is not normally asked to make the planning decision again.

Judicial review and statutory challenges examine whether the decision was made lawfully. They do not ordinarily permit the court to substitute its own view about how much weight landscape harm, renewable-energy benefits or another planning consideration deserved.

A disagreement about weight is usually different from a failure to consider a legally relevant matter.

Decision-makers commonly have latitude over the weight given to material considerations. A potential legal issue can arise where a mandatory consideration was omitted, an irrelevant consideration was relied upon, policy or legislation was legally misunderstood, or the procedure was unlawful.

Evidence disputes require careful analysis.

A campaign may consider an expert assessment weak, but a court does not ordinarily choose between competing planning experts simply because one side disagrees. The legal question is whether the decision-making treatment of the evidence was lawful.

Reasons can matter.

A decision may be vulnerable where legally required reasoning is absent or inadequate in a way recognised by the applicable law, but not every short or imperfect explanation is unlawful.

Materiality matters to remedy.

Even where an error is identified, legal advice must consider whether it could have affected the outcome and whether the court would grant a remedy.

Sources and further information

Civil Procedure Rules - Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review

GOV.UK - Planning Act 2008: decision-making stage and legal challenges

Department of Justice NI - Judicial review

Last checked: 26 September 2026

Preserve the formal decision record.

Keep the decision notice or order, statement of reasons, officer report, reporter or examination report, committee agenda and minutes, conditions and approved plans.

Preserve the procedural record.

Keep consultation notices, representation deadlines, correspondence about participation, hearing or inquiry notices, procedural decisions and evidence showing when documents were published.

Preserve the evidence relied upon by the decision-maker.

Download the relevant application documents, environmental information, consultee responses, additional information and important revisions. Online planning portals can change after determination.

Keep your own representations in their submitted form.

Record submission dates and acknowledgements. This can help establish what issue was actually put before the decision-maker.

Create a chronology.

A short dated sequence of the important events can make early legal assessment much more efficient.

Do not alter original evidence.

Work from copies and retain original files, emails and screenshots with dates where possible. Avoid annotations that could later be confused with the source document.

Sources and further information

Civil Procedure Rules - Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review

GOV.UK - Planning Act 2008: decision-making stage and legal challenges

Last checked: 26 September 2026

Standing concerns whether the claimant has sufficient legal interest to bring the challenge.

It is not determined simply by how strongly someone feels about a development.

Participation in the planning process can be relevant but is not a universal standalone test.

Whether an individual, community body or campaign organisation has standing depends on the applicable public-law rules and circumstances.

An organisation should be able to explain its connection to the issue.

Relevant factors can include its purposes, activities, affected members, participation in the decision process and the public-law issue raised.

Standing should be assessed early.

A strong alleged legal error does not remove the need to identify a proper claimant.

Do not create an artificial claimant at the last minute.

If litigation is genuinely being considered, obtain legal advice on claimant selection, governance authority and funding before proceedings are issued.

Sources and further information

Civil Procedure Rules - Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review

Department of Justice NI - Judicial review

Last checked: 26 September 2026

A pre-action letter identifies the proposed legal challenge before proceedings are issued.

In England and Wales, the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review is intended to help parties understand the dispute, exchange relevant information and consider whether litigation can be avoided.

It should identify the decision, proposed claimant, defendant, grounds and remedy sought.

A legal representative will normally formulate the alleged errors precisely and identify the relevant documents and response period.

It is not another planning objection.

The letter should focus on alleged public-law error rather than repeating every objection to the development.

Sending a pre-action letter does not stop the court deadline.

The England and Wales Protocol expressly warns that it does not alter the judicial-review time limit. A claimant must protect the court deadline even if correspondence remains unanswered.

Urgency changes the process.

Where a very short statutory period or imminent action leaves insufficient time, legal advisers may need to modify the normal pre-action timetable while still complying with procedural duties as far as practicable.

Sources and further information

Civil Procedure Rules - Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review

Last checked: 26 September 2026

The available remedy depends on the court, jurisdiction and proceedings.

Judicial-review remedies can include setting aside or reducing/quashing an unlawful decision, prohibiting unlawful action, requiring a public authority to act, or declaratory relief.

Success does not normally mean the campaign receives a planning refusal from the court.

Where a consent or permission is set aside, the usual consequence is that the public decision-maker must deal with the matter again lawfully, unless the particular statutory regime or order provides otherwise.

The eventual planning outcome can therefore remain uncertain.

A decision-maker reconsidering the case can sometimes reach the same substantive outcome after correcting the legal error.

Remedies are subject to legal rules and judicial discretion.

Identifying an error does not by itself answer every question about remedy. Materiality, delay, third-party interests and statutory provisions can be relevant.

Campaign communications should describe the result accurately.

If a permission is quashed, say that the decision has been quashed or set aside. Do not automatically say the development has been permanently refused.

Sources and further information

Civil Procedure Rules - Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review

Department of Justice NI - Judicial review

Last checked: 26 September 2026

Court litigation can create significant financial exposure.

Potential costs include the claimant's own legal representation, court fees, expert input where needed and an adverse costs order if the case is unsuccessful.

Environmental cases can have special costs rules.

Some proceedings engaging the Aarhus Convention can fall within protective costs regimes, but whether a particular challenge qualifies and the applicable cap require legal assessment.

Funding arrangements should be established before proceedings.

A campaign should identify who the claimant is, who instructs lawyers, how its own costs will be paid and what happens if further funding is required.

Crowdfunding does not remove procedural deadlines or costs liability.

Fundraising should not delay obtaining advice or filing proceedings where a deadline applies.

Do not publish assurances that supporters have 'no risk' without legal advice.

Costs can depend on the claimant, procedural choices, protective regimes, applications and conduct of the litigation.

Sources and further information

Civil Procedure Rules - Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review

Department of Justice NI - Judicial review

Last checked: 26 September 2026

Starting a judicial review does not necessarily suspend the consent or automatically stop works.

The legal effect depends on the decision and any applicable statutory provision or court order.

Urgent interim relief may need to be considered.

If irreversible works are imminent, legal advisers can assess whether an interim order should be sought to preserve the position until the court determines the case.

The court considers more than the claimant's objection to construction.

Applications for interim relief involve legal tests and can require undertakings, evidence and consideration of prejudice to all parties.

Act before the practical situation becomes irreversible.

If a campaign believes felling, demolition, peat excavation or another significant operation is imminent, that fact should be communicated to its legal adviser immediately.

Do not obstruct authorised works personally.

Any attempt to stop development should be through lawful processes. The existence of a proposed court challenge does not itself authorise entry onto land or interference with construction.

Sources and further information

Civil Procedure Rules - Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review

Department of Justice NI - Judicial review

Last checked: 26 September 2026

Sometimes an authority can acknowledge an error, but the lawful mechanism depends on the decision.

Certain statutory regimes contain correction procedures for limited errors, while a substantive unlawful decision may require consent to a court order, reconsideration after quashing, or another statutory process.

A typographical correction is different from changing the planning judgement.

A correction power should not be assumed to authorise a new substantive decision.

Pre-action correspondence can clarify the authority's position.

One purpose of early correspondence is to identify whether the dispute can be resolved without a fully contested hearing.

Third-party interests matter.

Where a developer or other interested party benefits from the decision, resolving a challenge can involve parties beyond the public authority.

Do not assume that an authority's admission automatically cancels permission.

Check the formal legal outcome, including any court order, corrected decision or replacement determination.

Sources and further information

Civil Procedure Rules - Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review

Planning Act 2008 - section 118 legal challenges

Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024 - section 96 legal challenges

Last checked: 26 September 2026

Separate legal concern from legal conclusion.

Before specialist advice, say that a potential legal issue is being examined rather than declaring the decision unlawful.

Do not name individuals as having committed wrongdoing merely because a decision is disputed.

A legal challenge concerns the lawfulness of a public decision. Personal allegations can distract from the actual grounds and create separate legal risk.

Protect legal advice.

Do not publish solicitor or counsel advice, draft pleadings or privileged communications without specific legal advice on the consequences.

Be precise about procedural status.

Distinguish considering a challenge, sending pre-action correspondence, filing a claim, obtaining permission to proceed, winning a hearing and obtaining a final remedy.

Avoid promising the planning outcome.

Even a successful challenge can result in the decision being remade rather than permanent refusal of the development.

Sources and further information

Civil Procedure Rules - Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review

Last checked: 26 September 2026