The withdrawal of the UK from the Aarhus convention (Starmer asks Conservative peer to write planning bill to block judicial reviews, 27 September) would deter ordinary people and local groups from using the law to challenge poor environmental decisions made by councils and other public bodies. The legal challenge I brought against Elmbridge council in 2010, with my co-claimant Gerald McAully, was the first to receive cost protection following the incorporation of the Aarhus convention into English law.
We were challenging Elmbridge council’s decision to give planning permission for flats to be built on the Thames flood plain opposite Hampton Court Palace, a truly appalling prospect. We would not have been to do this without the protection the Aarhus convention offered us, which limited our exposure to £5,000. Similarly, other individuals and groups wishing to protect treasured open spaces – allotments, playing fields etc – should be able to do so without the thought of incurring ruinous legal costs if they lose.
Keith Garner
London
You report that the prime minister has tasked Charles Banner KC to write a new planning bill to remove the ability for environmental groups to delay projects with judicial reviews, and that leaving the Aarhus convention is being discussed as an option to remove the cap on costs for groups bringing a judicial review. Lord Banner has previously written that removing these cost caps could not be done without leaving Aarhus.
There is an easier solution than leaving an international convention, which would rightly give rise to a long debate in itself. Ministers could easily amend the current planning and infrastructure bill to provide for a consent for a nationally significant infrastructure project that is categorised as a critical national priority, to be confirmed by a one-clause bill through an abridged parliamentary process taking between four to eight months, considerably quicker than judicial review.
This would take us back to a well-precedented procedure that was once commonplace, where “provisional orders” made by ministers for infrastructure and other matters were then routinely confirmed by parliament. Arguments against the project concerned not already considered during the planning process could be raised and heard by a joint parliamentary committee. The result, a short act of parliament, would not then be judicially reviewable.
An amendment to put this process in place was debated in the House of Lords in July. It has since been revised to respond to some of the points then made. If the government support it when the bill comes back on report next month, the procedure could start to be used again from early 2026.
Robbie Owen
Parliamentary agent and partner, Pinsent Masons
