A designation of an area as a controlled parking area was vitiated by the failure of the Local Authority to consult locally. The court expanded on the principles for consultation set out in Gunning: ‘What kind and amount of consultation is required in a particular case must depend on the circumstances. A few general principles can however, be stated.
‘The process of consultation must be effective; looked at as a whole, it must be fair. This requires that: consultation must take place while the proposals are still at a formative stage; those consulted must be provided with information which is accurate and sufficient to enable them to make a meaningful response; they must be given adequate time in which to do so; there must be adequate time for their responses to be considered; the consulting party must consider responses with a receptive mind and a conscientious manner when reaching its decision.’
References: Times 25-Jan-1995, Ind Summary 20-Mar-1995, (1996) 94 LGR 8
Judges: McCullough J
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 9
This case cites:
- Cited – Regina v Brent London Borough Council ex parte Gunning 1985 ([1985] 84 LGR 168)
The demands of fair consultation procedures will vary from case to case and will depend on the factors involved. The requirements are: ‘First, that consultation must be at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage. Second, that the . .
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Regina (on the Application of Wainwright) v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council CA 20-Dec-2001 (, Times 16-Jan-02, Gazette 27-Feb-02, , [2001] EWHC Admin 1090, [2001] EWCA Civ 2062, )
A local authority was under a statutory duty to consult before undertaking road improvements. Because of the chaotic mail administration systems, the consultation had been ruled unlawful. The council appealed.
Held: The council had in fact . . - Cited – Partingdale Lane Residents’ Association, Regina (on the Application of) v Barnet London Borough Council Admn 2-Apr-2003 (, [2003] EWHC 947 (Admin))
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 – X, Regina (on the Application of) v Y School Admn 21-Feb-2007 (, [2007] EWHC 298 (Admin), [2008] 1 All ER 249)
The court was asked whether a school was entitled to refuse to allow a Muslim girl to wear the niqab full face veil at school. The reasons were ‘first educational factors resulting from a teacher being unable to see the face of the girl with a . . - Cited – Watkins-Singh, Regina (on the Application of) v The Governing Body of Aberdare Girls’ High School and Another Admn 29-Jul-2008 (, [2008] EWHC 1865 (Admin), [2008] ELR 561)
Miss Singh challenged her school’s policy which operated to prevent her wearing while at school a steel bangle, a Kara. She said this was part of her religion as a Sikh.
Held: Earlier comparable applications had been made under human rights . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 19 September 2020; Ref: scu.86281 br>
The post Regina v Camden London Borough Council Ex Parte Cran and Others: QBD 25 Jan 1995 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.