There was the usual rush of case hand-downs ahead of the end of the court term last week. Some of them caused me to reflect on this thing we talk about with clients all the time: JR risk. Even an unsuccessful judicial review of a planning permission can cause huge delays and problems for the developer (and don’t some objectors, often protected against any significant costs exposure even if they are unsuccessful, know it?) and if one or more of your grounds actually lands in your favour, back the decision goes for re-determination, possibly against a different political or economic background: bonanza…
I was also thinking about the government’s 16 July 2026 consultation paper Judicial Review Reforms Beyond Nationally Significant Infrastructure. Following on from its reforms to the judicial review process in relation to nationally significant infrastructure projects (see my 31 May 2026 blog post Keeping Up: JR Changes, Deadlines, the government is now considering a series of proposals that might be introduced more broadly to developments consented under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Transport and Works Act 1992. These include:
- removing the paper permission stage and for removing the right of appeal for cases which are deemed totally without merit at the oral permission hearing – whether for all planning cases or just for major infrastructure projects and other strategically important developments;
- designating all claims relating to ‘major infrastructure projects’ and other ‘strategically important developments’ as “Significant Planning Court Claims” so that target timescales for dealing with the case apply and so as to ensure that each case is reviewed by the Planning Liaison Judge to ensure it is allocated to a judge with an appropriate level of expertise;
- encouraging the use of case management conferences – whether for all planning cases or just for major infrastructure projects and other strategically important developments;
- applying more broadly the new target timescales that will apply to nationally significant infrastructure project claims from 1 October 2026, namely: shortened deadlines for the service of the pre-permission documents from seven days to three; target timescale for having the oral permission hearing three weeks from the claimant’s deadline for filing a reply to the acknowledgment of service; shortened deadline for filing and serving the detailed grounds of defence from 35 to 28 days.
- extending the target timescales for NSIP appeals in the Court of Appeal to ‘major infrastructure projects’ and other ‘strategically important developments’, namely (1) for permission to appeal: determination to be given four weeks from the application for permission to appeal and (2) for the hearing of a substantive appeal: four months from the application for permission to appeal.
Consultation responses are invited by 27 August 2026.
I can see that much of this is sensible tightening of processes and timescales – indeed it is exactly what we need with the actual planning application process but that is another story. Will it serve to dissuade meritless claims or materially reduce “JR risk”? I’m not so sure.
So how can we do, as planning lawyers and planners, to reduce JR risk on any potential project? It is so difficult. The uncomfortable reality is that the system now has almost countless legal trip hazards, given the numerous overlapping legislative regimes at play. Of course we can try to make the planning application “legally bullet-proof”, by way of (now the norm on larger projects) a legal audit of the draft application package; we can seek to make sure that there are no procedural slip-ups on the part of the local planning authority; we can review the planning committee report (even in draft, the High Court has recently confirmed: see my 12 July 2026 blog post Draft Planning Committee Reports: Sharing Is Caring) and seek to rectify before the decision any errors that we see. But there is always the residual risk that something has slipped through, and for sure the claimant will be looking to identify as many grounds as are seen to have any real mileage, because they only need to win on one ground and in litigation (particularly public law litigation) there are very few legal areas of absolute certainty. Some clients may indeed be driven to take out an insurance policy against the financial impacts of a judicial review, which has its place although inevitably expensive and not a panacea.
Without commentary on the specific legal rights and wrongs, these were some of the recent cases that caught my eye:
Guardians of Whitewebbs Park CIC v London Borough of Enfield (Sir Tim Kerr sitting as a judge of the High Court, 27 July 2026)
This was the quashing of planning permission for the proposed redevelopment of a former golf course in the green belt to provide Tottenham Hotspur’s women’s and girls’ football training academy together with associated development. The land is owned by Enfield Council which had entered into an agreement for lease with the council, which had then in due course granted planning permission. The permission was challenged by claimant on six grounds, one of which was abandoned before the full hearing of the case. Whilst the judge rejected grounds that alleged that the officer’s report had misinterpreted or misapplied a local plan policy in relation to heritage assets, that the report had not properly considered the scheme’s impacts on the openness of the green belt and that there had been apparent bias on the part of the council, the allowed the claim on the basis that (1) there was a breach of section 100D of the Local Government Act 1972 given that two background papers had not been published alongside the officer’s report that would have showed a disagreement between expert ecologists about whether the required biodiversity net gain (BNG) could be achieved and that (2) the planning committee had been materially misled by officers in relation to concerns about whether the required BNG could be achieved.
It is interesting to note that the council was defending the claim until shortly before the June 2026 hearing but, following the change of political control of the council the previous month, it informed the court that it would no longer defend the case, leaving Spurs to contest the claim.
The planning committee resolved to approve the application on 11 February 2025 and whilst the claimant did request reconsideration of that decision, this was not any of the grounds on which the judicial review was eventually brought. Only after the permission was eventually issued on 22 July 2025 was a “lengthy and detailed pre-action protocol letter from the claimant’s solicitors” sent on 2 August 2025 – by which time it was of course too late for the council or applicant to do anything about the grounds pleaded.
R (Staunch Campaign Limited) v North Northamptonshire Council (Sir Peter Lane, 30 July 2026)
This was an unsuccessful challenge by a local campaign group to planning permission granted for a large commercial development. The claimant relied on five grounds of challenge, all based on alleged breaches of the Conservation of Habitats Regulations 2017 in the way in which the council had determined the application.
R (Royal Mint Court Residents’ Association) v Secretary of State (Dingemans LLJ and Lieven J, 31 July 2026
This was the unsuccessful challenge to the government’s decision to grant planning permission for the proposed new Chinese Embassy at Royal Mint Court, just to the east of the Tower of London. Again there were five grounds of challenge on a variety of grounds: unlawful approach to the enforcement of planning conditions and obligations (given the identity of the People’s Republic of China as the applicant); unlawful failure to disclose a Security Statement (summarising a risk assessment that had been commissioned by the PRC) and a Blast Assessment (commissioned by the local planning authority); non- -compliance with Article 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) England Order 2015 (on the basis that applications were redacted so as not to show all internal room layouts proposed), and unlawful failure to identify and assess human rights.
We also had the publicity given to the apparent end to another east London planning law saga, the Holborn Studios litigation, ten years after the first planning permission was granted (later quashed in 2017 following a judicial review brought by Holborn Studios) for redevelopment of a building then occupied by Holborn Studios. A second planning permission was granted in 2019 and then again quashed in 2020 following a judicial review again brought by the same claimant. Planning permission was then granted for a third time, by a planning inspector on appeal, in 2024 and was quashed by the High Court in 2025. Landmark Chambers has announced Court of Appeal allows appeal in Holborn Studios litigation although in fact unusually the appeal was allowed by way of a consent order dated 17 July agreed between the parties and endorsed by the court, following Holborn Studios having been placed in administration. Ten years…!
It would be interesting to reflect on whether the government’s latest proposals to reform judicial review would have enabled any of these disputes to have been resolved at an earlier stage (I doubt it) and indeed what else might be effective. For instance, in some cases surely there may be a role for what I suggested in my 12 July 2026 blog post:
“The data in relation to any large scheme can be complex and nuanced. And if there is a mistake, a potential claimant for judicial review currently (ridiculously) has the luxury of being able to stay quiet, deliberately, until the permission is issued, perhaps months later after the section 106 agreement has been completed, before then popping up with his or her grounds of challenge once it is too late for the council or applicant to do anything about them (the obvious solution would be for the High Court’s pre-action protocol in relation to judicial review in the Planning Court to set out an expectation that a potential claimant should usually send its pre-action letter promptly once it ascertains that grounds for potential challenge have first arisen rather than being able to wait until the permission has issued but I’ve said that too many times to no effect).”
There I’ve said it again.
Simon Ricketts, 1 August 2026
Personal views, et cetera
SIMONICITY 