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 predisposition or even giving strong weight to his own manifesto commitment that Partingdale Lane should be re-opened, and had predetermined the issue of principle as to its re-opening before consultation ever took place. That predisposition was not cured by subsequent council processes.
References: [2003] EWHC 947 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Rabinder Singh QC
Statutes: Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Local Government Act 2000 10 11 13
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- 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 – 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 . . - Cited – Regina v Camden London Borough Council Ex Parte Cran and Others QBD 25-Jan-1995 (Times 25-Jan-95, Ind Summary 20-Mar-95, (1996) 94 LGR 8)
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 . . - Cited – Lower Hutt City Council v Bank 1974 ([1974] 1 NZLR 545)
(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 – Bovis Homes Ltd v New Forest District Council Admn 2002 ([2002] EWHC 483 (Admin))
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 v Amber Valley District Council ex parte Dickson QBD 1984 ([1985] 1 WLR 2998, [1984] 3 All ER 501)
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 – Bromley London Borough Council v Greater London Council HL 17-Dec-1981 ([1983] AC 768, [1982] 1 All ER 153, , [1981] UKHL 7, [1982] 2 WLR 62)
Bromley complained of a supplementary precept issued by the respondent to implement a commitment, contained in an election manifesto for the election in May 1979, upon which the majority on the GLC had been elected.
Held: In making choices of . .
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Island Farm Development Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Bridgend County Borough Council Admn 25-Aug-2006 (, [2006] EWHC 2189 (Admin))
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 . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 04 October 2020; Ref: scu.185034 br>
The post Partingdale Lane Residents’ Association, Regina (on the Application of) v Barnet London Borough Council: Admn 2 Apr 2003 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.