header-logo header-logo

11 September 2013
Issue: 7575 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Time-limited Planning Chamber out for speedy consultation

The government wants to create a specialist planning court for judicial reviews on planning applications.
 

It believes the creation of a Specialist Planning Chamber in the Upper Tribunal, with its own judges and separate procedural rules setting specific time limits, will speed up the planning process.

The new chamber would build on a government initiative introduced in July in the Administrative Court, the Planning Fast-Track, which identifies planning related-reviews at an early stage and refers them on to judges with experience in the area. Stuart Andrews, partner at Eversheds, says: “We have been calling for a specialist court of this type for some time as it would ease delays that hold up major building projects.”

The speedy planning hub forms part of the Ministry of Justice’s current consultation, Judicial review: proposals for further reform, which is geared to cutting the number of judicial review applications. A record number of applications were lodged last year, mainly driven by a rise in immigration and asylum cases. And applications have doubled in number in the last six years, from 6,683 in 2007 to 12,434 in 2012, according to figures gathered by Sweet & Maxwell. More than three-quarters of these (9,469) relate to immigration or asylum.

Maurice Sunkin, Professor of Public Law and Socio-Legal Studies, University of Essex, says: “It’s not the growth in judicial review claims that is surprising and disconcerting. It is that beyond immigration, judicial review has not grown more. Despite apparent increases in levels of challenge, things are by no means as bad as they seem for the government. Planned reforms will divert substantial numbers of immigration and asylum cases towards immigration tribunals and away from the judicial review process.”

 

Issue: 7575 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll