(Commission) A local authority had served an enforcement notice on ISKCON alleging a material change of use of the land. ISKCON appealed against the notice under section 174(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and after a report by an inspector the Secretary of State largely confirmed the enforcement notice. The High Court and the Court of Appeal rejected ISKCON’S appeal. On a complaint under the Convention the Commission recalled that an appeal under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 lay only on a point of law but it took into account that the local authority could only take proceedings within the limits of section 174 of that Act and that in accordance with its own structure plans and the policy guidance laid down by the Secretary of State ISKCON could then seek a determination as to whether the legal requirements had been met.
Held: The Commission concluded: ‘The Commission recalls that the High Court dealt with each of ISKCON’S grounds of appeal on its merits, point by point, without ever having to decline jurisdiction. Moreover, it was open to ISKCON to contend in the High Court that findings of fact by the inspector and/or the Secretary of State were unsupported by evidence, as they could have argued that the administrative authorities failed to take into account an actual fact or did take into account an immaterial fact. Finally, the High Court could have interfered with the administrative authorities’ decisions if those decisions had been irrational having regard to the facts established by the authorities.
It is not the role of article 6 of the Convention to give access to a level of jurisdiction which can substitute its opinion for that of the administrative authorities on questions of expediency and where the courts do not refuse to examine any of the points raised; article 6 gives a right to a court that has ‘full jurisdiction’ (cf [Zumtobel v Austria (1993) 17 EHRR 116, para 32]).’
Citations:
20490/92, (1994) 18 EHRR CD 133
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6, Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Cited by:
Cited – Heald and Others v London Borough of Brent CA 20-Aug-2009
The court considered whether it was lawful for a local authority to outsource the decision making on homelessness reviews. The appellants said that it could not be contracted out, and that the agent employed lacked the necessary independence and was . .
Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Planning, Administrative
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.251597