Content area
Full text
Planning Court Martin Edwards and Clare Parry ask whether the specialist court has lived up to expectations
The Planning Court is now just over one year old. At the time of its introduction it was widely welcomed, promising an increased level of specialism on the bench, faster timetables and new procedural directions with the objective of reducing delay. So, one year on, has it lived up to expectations?
Initial inception
It was back in December 2012 that the then-government launched proposals to overhaul the judicial review system. More specific concerns had also been raised about the delay caused by legal challenges to planning permissions. In recent years there had been a perception that the number of planning and environmental claims had increased noticeably. Given the number of major changes to planning legislation, most notably in the Localism Act 2011, and the introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), this was hardly surprising.
Furthermore, the decision of the Supreme Court in Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13; [2012] PLSCS 69 brought about a change in approach to the interpretation of planning policy that heralded an increase in judicial oversight of planning decisions.
Consequently, in April 2013, a number of planning-related changes were made. The time limit for bringing planning-related judicial review claims was shortened from three months to six weeks (although in reality the old time limit was as soon as practicable and in any event no later than three months), removing the right to an oral hearing when permission had been refused on the basis that the claim was totally without merit, and introducing a fee for oral renewals. A system for fast-tracking certain claims was also brought in.
However, the government felt that, in relation to planning, these changes did not go far enough. In September 2013 the Ministry of Justice issued a consultation paper in which it expressed concern that "unmeritorious claims... can delay the progress of major infrastructure projects which are intended to stimulate growth and promote economic recovery".
The argument was that unsuccessful judicial review claims caused delay to the implementation of developments. In 2011, on average it took 313 days for a judicial review claim...