The claimant applied for a review of a decision by the respondent council not to sell it land.
Held: The challenge failed. The councillors had acted in accordance with advice given to them by officers, and ‘the committee was concerned only to consider what was in the interest of the Council. And in reaching its decision, immediate financial benefits were not the only consideration. The Cabinet had to take into account the desirability in the interests of the inhabitants of Bridgend of providing special employment and in maintaining what, after a public inquiry, the UDP had laid down. The existence of planning permission and the effect on the claimants, while no doubt worthy of consideration, could not be given any weight if the conclusion was properly reached that the interests of the Council meant that the land should be retained for future development. Indeed, since the incoming administration had formed the view that the development was inappropriate, the Cabinet was not only entitled but bound to look only to what it regarded as the best interests of the Council and inhabitants of Bridgend. ‘
Judges:
Collins J
Citations:
[2006] EWHC 2189 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Local Government Act 1972 123(2)
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Amber Valley District Council ex parte Dickson QBD 1984
One group on the council decided to support a proposed planning application. It was then asked whether that prevented a member of the group sitting on the committee which would assess it. There was an affidavit from the leader of the majority group . .
Cited – Lower Hutt City Council v Bank 1974
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) The court was asked about the validity of a decision of a local council where it was said that a councillor had already made up his mind: ‘It cannot be doubted that one of the cardinal principle of natural justice, and . .
Cited – Regina v Waltham Forest London Borough Council, Ex parte Baxter CA 1988
Challenge was made to the way the Council set its rate. Prior to the decision, the majority group held a private meeting at which a decision was reached following a vote on the appropriate increase. It was then the duty of the members to vote in . .
Cited – Partingdale Lane Residents’ Association, Regina (on the Application of) v Barnet London Borough Council Admn 2-Apr-2003
Complaint was made that a Councillor had closed his mind to any arguments and had predetermined the decision on a proposed road re-opening order.
Held: The application was allowed. Councillor Coleman had himself gone beyond a legitimate . .
Cited – Bovis Homes Ltd v New Forest District Council Admn 2002
An allegation of bias was based on the participation by a councillor in the meeting which adopted the council’s local plan who was a member of a committee and had been involved in a meeting of that committee which had supported the proposed . .
Cited – Regina (Loudon) v Bury School Organisation Committee Admn 2002
Lightman J said: ‘The distinction between (disqualifying) pecuniary interests and (non-disqualifying) potential pre-judgment arising from prior publicly stated views in the case of administrative bodies . . is well-established: see e.g. R v SSE ex p . .
Cited – Georgiou v London Borough of Enfield; Cygnet Healthcare Ltd, Rainbow Developments, J Patel Admn 7-Apr-2004
The claimant sought to challenge a decision of the council to grant a Listed Building consent. Members who decided the applications had also been members of the Council’s Conservation Advisory Group which had held a meeting before the Planning . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Local Government
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244689