And so it has come to pass. The government has decided to press ahead with its proposals to change the procedure governing applications to challenge planning decisions by judicial review.
Two particular changes attracted a lot of press attention at the time that they were mooted: a reduction in the time limit for making applications and the removal of the right to an oral renewal hearing where a judge has declared the claim to be totally without merit. These changes have been brought about by the Civil Procedure (Amendment No 4) Rules 2013 (the Rules). They amend CPR 52.15 and CPR 54.5 with effect from 1 July 2013 – but see below.
(…)
In addition, many judicial reviews of planning decisions involve issues of European environmental law. As a result of the need for the UK to abide by the Aarhus Convention (22 June, p105), which required states to ensure that access to environmental justice was not made prohibitively expensive, the courts developed the notion of the Protected Costs Order.
As from 1 April 2013 these have been replaced by automatic costs capping set out in CPR 45.41-44 for “Aarhus Convention” claims, ie a claim for judicial review of a decision, act or omission all or part of which is subject to the provisions of the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.
Unintended consequence
The overall consequence of these changes may be more not less judicial review applications. The real problem with judicial review applications was not the old three-month time limit but the fact that, once lodged, an application could remain in the court for months, if not years, before being finally determined. These changes do nothing to address this problem.
