Back
Legal

A breathing space must allow for a full breath
Where a challenge to a planning related decision has to be made by way of application for judicial review, the aggrieved party (for example, a scandalised local resident) is now unlikely to encounter delay objections if the application has been made within the three-month time limit laid down generally for judicial review applications in Part 54 of the CPR (replacing RSC Ord 53).
As observed by Martin Edwards and John Martin in Lords grasp the nettle Estates Gazette 6 July 2002, p136, a
self-assumed judicial discretion to prescribe a shorter period in planning cases has for all practical purposes been knocked on the head by certain pronouncements made in the House of Lords: see R (on the application of Burkett)
v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [2002] UKHL 23; [2002] 2 PLR 90 (noted on a related issue in PP 2002/134).
The implications for the developer, including the possible need for judicial review insurance, are considered by Sebastian Charles and Alexander O’Connor, of Norton Rose, in Don’t be wise after the event Estates Gazette, 10 August 2002, p82.

Up next…