Nuclear plants, trainlines and windfarms will be built quicker thanks to changes to the rules, the Labour government has announced.
Major infrastructure projects can now only be legally challenged in court once, down from three times.
The government said continued challenges were adding hundreds of millions of pounds to the cost of projects that have been approved by democratically elected ministers, while also clogging up the courts.
Keir Starmer, Prime Minister, said: “For too long, blockers have had the upper hand in legal challenges – using our court processes to frustrate growth.
“We’re putting an end to this challenge culture by taking on the NIMBYs and a broken system that has slowed down our progress as a nation.”
On average, each legal challenge takes around a year and a half to be resolved – with many delayed for two years or more – and the courts have spent over 10,000 working days handling these cases.
Projects delayed by over two years include East Anglia wind farms; nuclear power station Sizewell C; and the A47 National Highway Project, which was delayed by a former Green councillor despite his case being dismissed as having ‘no logical basis’.
Following the change the current first attempt – known as the paper permission stage – will be scrapped. And primary legislation will be changed so that where a judge in an oral hearing at the High Court deems the case Totally Without Merit, it will not be possible to ask the Court of Appeal to reconsider. To ensure ongoing access to justice, a request to appeal second attempt will be allowed for other cases.
Richard Atkinson, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, gave the announcement a mixed reception.
He said: “It is important that major infrastructure projects are able to progress smoothly to deliver public benefit and provide certainty to those involved in or affected by the project,”
“However, any reforms must balance efficiency with maintaining access to justice.
“Judicial review plays a vital role in upholding the rule of law by ensuring that decisions on major infrastructure projects are made in accordance with the law.
“Removing the paper permission stage for these judicial reviews could increase both the cost and length of permission hearings. We believe this would benefit from further analysis before reforms are taken forward.
He added: “The experience of our members is that making permission decisions on the papers saves costs and resource for both parties and the courts. In contrast, the preparation required for an oral hearing can be extensive, and there are additional costs to attending a hearing.
“It is possible that the certainty of higher costs – especially so early in the case, before permission is even granted – could discourage a claimant to the extent that it raises concerns for access to justice. Requiring oral hearings for all permission applications may also lengthen these proceedings, as it prevents those that could be easily dealt with from progressing more quickly.”