Judicial review

[Dave the OAP]

Instead of people speculating wildly can ED or any Civil Servant or Legal Bod on here please explain just exactly what a JR entails.

Is it a review of the Government's 16 Point decision?

What powers has it to repeal the decision?

How does affect the original Planning Permission?

If they say that only 1 of the original points is incorrect ( which everyone seems to agree) does that mean the whole thing fails?

If the Court say that the decision was ok, is that the green light to go ahead?

Can LDC or anyone for that matter appeal against a JR ruling? EU Court of Human Rights ?

Cheers ED.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

From my understanding if they agree with one or more of the points raised by the LDC then the decision is quashed and returned to the Govt. to make a new and informed decision.

However, the court may also allow it to stand if it is decided that there is no material impact on the final decision even though a part of the process was unlawful.

I guess they could contest that the decision violates human rights, although I am unsure of what path they would take, as I can't see how it does. The costs of that would be huge and I don't think they would have further funding for that.

If they decide that none of the points raised have any substance then the case will be returned and planning permission will be granted.


I work in housing consultancy and I studied planning about 3 years ago now, so this is not the gospel. This is to the best of my knowledge.


Ps Does the REMF play cricket?

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

The next person who mentions either

Falmer
Appeal
LDC
Judicial Review

Will have me personally come to their workplace and insert a large marrow up their bottom.

You have been warned

 

[Gritt23]

The next person who mentions either

Falmer
Appeal
LDC
Judicial Review

Will have me personally come to their workplace and insert a large marrow up their bottom.

You have been warned

Is that a promise?

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

YES

 

[Westdene Seagull]

FALMER !!!

** bends over expectantly **

 

[Dave the OAP]

oi stop ruining my thread glover

 

[The Oldman]

Pretty certain you can appeal against a decision of the High Court to the Court of Appeal as a first step.


Waits for marrow

edted to refer to Clown of Pevensey Bay's post on other thread


"They could potentially take the High Court's decision to the Court of Appeal (civil division), and then, if they were granted leave to appeal, the House of Lords.

But the House of Lords has already decided its position -- and therefore the LAW -- on the matter (see Lord B's signature for more details).

From there, it would take one of the most remarkable flights from orthodoxy in the history of law and government for the European Court of Justice to hear the case.

 

[110%]

I'll try and answer the questions but it might be a bit long winded and dry and I don’t like marrow but here goes nonetheless……

A JR is a review of the way that the decision was reached. What this means is that the court is looking at whether the legal requirements were followed or if there were any fundament errors in the way the decision was made and whether this in any way affected the decision. There are instances where a technical breach of the legal requirements won’t result in the court quashing the decision, if the court is satisfied that this does not set any sort of precedent and would not have altered the outcome. However, that is very rare and normally if there is a breach of the requirements the court will find that there has been prejudice to one of the parties and the decision will be quashed. (There is a ‘famous’ case (in planning) where there were various reports prepared by consultants on highways, landscaping, air quality etc but because they were not bound together and presented as a single Environmental Impact Assessment as the rules required, the planning permission was quashed! So even a technical breach can be enough to quash a decision.) In our case the Secretary of State misidentified the boundary of the built up area and this mistake was then used in part of his reasoning for approving the application.

What you have to bear in mind is that the court won’t replace the decision maker (the Secretary of State) and therefore it won’t come to its own decision on the merits of the case. What this means is that if the decision maker puts a lot of weight on protecting the countryside (because there are national planning policies which support this position) but puts little weight on the future of a football club (because its not considered to be in the national interest) then the court won’t make a comment on whether that is the correct balance. The court is only looking at the legalities. Having said that, the court is able to take a view on whether the actions are reasonable in the circumstances. There is a phrase which goes something along the lines of making sure that the decision maker hasn’t taken a decision which no reasonable decision maker would have made. So for example if the Secretary of State had paid no regard to the countryside policies this would have been unreasonable but if he pays some regard to them and decides that other legitimate planning factors outweigh the harm to the countryside the Court is less likely to see that as unreasonable.

It only takes one ground of a challenge to succeed for the whole decision to be quashed. In this case, the Secretary of State will be required to issue a new decision which avoids the previous mistakes.

A decision by the High Court can on occasions be challenged in the Court of Appeal. Leave has to be sought from the judge and the judge therefore has to be convinced that there is a reasonable legal argument that the decision is challengeable. A decision by the Court of Appeal (3 judges making the decision) can be challenged in the House of Lords (5 judges making the decision). Sometimes a case has such a fundamental bearing on a particular point of law or its interpretation that it will by-pass the court of appeal and go straight to the House of Lords.

Challenges of this sort have to be made by a party with a reasonable connection to the case. There are instances of individuals with no connection with a proposal (either as objector or supporter) launching challenges and the courts have considered them to be vexatious rather than trying to remedy some harm or argue a point of law.

 

[Dave the OAP]

Taking your point, LDC presumably have a "reasonalble connection to the case " then as they in effect brought it?

 

[Hadlee]

Hmm, so if the Court decides the boundarys error is not significant and did not effect the outcome of the ODPM decision they will not quash the decision.

Hopefully that will be the case.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Instead of people speculating wildly can ED or any Civil Servant or Legal Bod on here please explain just exactly what a JR entails.

A pedant writes ...

Lewes District Council have NEVER sought a Judicial Review.

They have submitted a Planning Appeal to the High Court, under the provisions of Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

[110%]

LDC have more than a reasonable connection, so there is no question of the court not taking them seriously.

The Treasury Solicitor has already conceded the point about the boundary and as its a pretty basic fact which was applied incorrectly in the decision letter from the Secretary of State, the decision for the court is straightforward and the decision should be quashed.

 

[Dave the OAP]

LDC have more than a reasonable connection, so there is no question of the court not taking them seriously.

The Treasury Solicitor has already conceded the point about the boundary and as its a pretty basic fact which was applied incorrectly in the decision letter from the Secretary of State, the decision for the court is straightforward and the decision should be quashed.

Meaning what?

they will then apply for a Judicial review ( thanks Ed)

 

[The Oldman]

Re: Re: Judicial review

A pedant writes ...

Lewes District Council have NEVER sought a Judicial Review.

They have submitted a Planning Appeal to the High Court, under the provisions of Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

I am grateful to my learned friend for that information

Does this mean that the process and consideration of the appeal wil be different to a JR?

 

[110%]

Re: Re: Judicial review

A pedant writes ...

Lewes District Council have NEVER sought a Judicial Review.

They have submitted a Planning Appeal to the High Court, under the provisions of Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

If we are getting really picky its an application to the High Court!!

But it all boils down to the same thing in the end.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Meaning what?

they will then apply for a Judicial review ( thanks Ed)

They've never suggested a Judicial Review at ANY stage.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Not that we should believe LDC anyway.


This sentence in their Press Release is a LIE:-

"But they (i.e the government) refused our reasonable request to guarantee that all of the other points in the challenge will be dealt with by the Government when it reconsiders the decision".

 

[Dave the OAP]

I am now totally confused


Where does the idea of a Judicial review come into it?

What is the High Court session if not a judicial review?

 

[tedebear]

LDC have submitted a "planning appeal" Dave not a "judicial review"