Yes, Cost can be taken into Account

July 18th, 2012 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and Contracts

In Health and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council [2012] UKSC 34 the Council, in its capacity as Local Planning Authority, granted planning permission for four blocks of student accommodation in proximity to a site used for storage of liquefied petroleum gas. Three of the blocks had been completed.  Work on the fourth had not commenced. Concerned that the storage facility constituted a danger to human life, the HSE applied for an order to revoke or modify the planning permission under s97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.  In refusing the application, the Council took into account its liability to pay compensation under s107 of the Act were it to revoke planning permission in respect of all four blocks, but it did not consider whether the application should be granted only in respect of the fourth block.  The HSE brought judicial review proceedings challenging, among other things, the Council’s decision not to revoke or modify the planning permission.  The Court of Appeal held by a majority that a decision under s97 of the Act was to be taken not in isolation but within the statutory framework of the Act which imposed a liability to pay compensation if an order was made under the section. Accordingly, the Council, when reconsidering the matter, would be entitled to take into account its liability to pay compensation under s107 of the Act.

The HSE appealed to the Supreme Court against this part of the decision of the Court of Appeal: the issue being whether it is always open to a LPA, in considering under s97 of the Act whether it appears to be expedient to revoke or modify a permission to develop land, to have regard to the compensation that it would or might have to pay under s107.

The SC unanimously dismissed the HSE’s appeal. Lord Carnwath said that, in simple terms, the question is whether a public authority, when deciding whether to exercise a discretionary power to achieve a public objective, is entitled to take into account the cost to the public of so doing. As custodian of public funds, the authority not only may, but generally must, have regard to the cost to the public of its actions, at least to the extent of considering in any case whether the cost is proportionate to the aim to be achieved, and taking account of any more economic ways of achieving the same objective.

The SC held that s97 of the Act requires no different approach. The section requires the authority to satisfy itself that revocation is “expedient”, and in so doing to have regard to the development plan and other “material considerations”.  The word “expedient” implies no more than that the action should be appropriate in all the circumstances. Where one of those circumstances is a potential liability for compensation, it is hard to see why it should be excluded. “Material” in ordinary language is the same as “relevant”. Where the exercise of the power, in the manner envisaged by the statute, will have both planning and financial consequences, there is no obvious reason to treat either as irrelevant.

Under s97, a planning authority has a discretion whether to act, and, if so, how. If it does decide to act, it must bear the financial consequences. S97 creates a specific statutory power to buy back a permission previously granted. Cost, or value for money, is naturally relevant to the purchaser’s consideration.

Sufficient consistency is given to the expression “material considerations” if it is treated as it is elsewhere in administrative law: that is, as meaning considerations material (or relevant) to the exercise of the particular power, in its statutory context and for the purposes for which it was granted. Furthermore, in exercising its choice not to act under s97, or in choosing between that and other means of achieving its planning objective, the authority is to be guided by what is “expedient”. No principle of consistency requires that process to be confined to planning considerations, or to exclude cost.  Possible difficulty in assessing precisely the likely level of compensation is no reason for not conducting the exercise, still less for leaving cost considerations out of account altogether.

However, the weight attributable to cost considerations will vary with the context.  There may be situations where cost could rarely be a valid reason for doing nothing, but could well be relevant to the choice between effective alternatives.

 

 

Sustainable Communities

June 28th, 2012 by James Goudie KC in Local Authority Powers

The Sustainable Communities Regulations 2012, SI 2012/1523, come into force on 26 July 2012, in England only.  They are the first Regulations to be made under the Sustainable Communities Act 2007, as amended in 2010.  The 2007 Act provides a channel whereby local people can ask Central Government, via their local authority, to take action which they consider will help improve the economic, social or environmental well-being of their area.  The Act provides for the SoS to invite local authorities to consult locally and to make proposals for enhancing local sustainability and well-being.  The main elements of the Regulations are that: (1) local authorities must, before making a proposal, to consult and try to reach agreement about the proposal with representatives of interested local persons, and have regard to guidance issued by the SoS; (2) the SoS must consider each proposal, and publish the decision, giving reasons, and the action to be taken if the proposal is to be implemented; (3) a “Selector” will be appointed who will consider the resubmission of proposals from local authorities whose proposals have been rejected by the SoS: the Selector must decide whether to submit them to the SoS for reconsideration, giving reasons, and must appoint an Advisory Panel to assist it in deciding whether these proposals should be submitted for reconsideration; and (4) the SoS must publish proposals submitted by the Selector with its reasons, and and must then consult and try to reach agreement with the Selector, before publishing the subsequent decision and giving reasons, and specifying the action to be taken if the proposal is to be implemented.

 

 

Procedural Fairness

June 27th, 2012 by James Goudie KC in Council Tax and Rates

R (Dudley MBC) v SoS for CLG [2012] EWHC 1729 (Admin) concerned a decision by the SoS to change the way in which he would make payments pursuant to s88B of LGFA 1988/s31 of LGA 2003 under a PFI scheme.  There were five grounds of challenge. The first, procedural fairness, relating to consultation, succeeded.  The other four failed. They were breach of a substantive legitimate expectation; application of a rigid and inflexible policy; failure to take relevant facts into account/error of fact; and breach of the PSED under s149 Eq A 2010.

As to the first ground, Singh J considered both whether there was a duty of consultation, and, on the basis that there was, the requirements of a lawful consultation.  As to the former, there were two bases on which the Council argued that it was entitled to be consulted before the decision was taken to withdraw the PFI grant on a declining balance basis and to replace it with the annuity basis. The first was that it had a legitimate expectation that there would be consultation based on the defendant’s past practice. The second was that, quite apart from such a procedural expectation, the claimant had an expectation that its grant would continue to be paid on the declining balance basis and that fairness required that, before it was withdrawn, it would be consulted on this issue. Singh J observed that it was important to note that, in making the second of those arguments, the Council for this purpose relied on its expectation not to argue that the SoS was not entitled to reach the decision he did at all (that was the subject of a separate ground, based on the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation), but that, before he did so, he had to follow a fair procedure. In other words, for this purpose, the Council submitted that its expectation gave rise to procedural rights, not substantive rights.

So far as the Council’s first argument was concerned, Singh J observed that in principle a legitimate expectation of consultation (i.e. a procedural expectation) can arise either from a promise that there will be consultation or from a past practice of such consultation. In the present case, the Council did not suggest that there was any promise of consultation. However, it did contend that there had been a past practice of consultation. Singh J, however, was not persuaded by that argument. All that the Council was able to rely on was the fact that in 2004 the SoS did consult when consideration was given to introducing the annuity basis as an alternative to the declining balance basis. In Singh J’s judgment, one incident of consultation of that type could not amount to a practice of consultation such as to give rise to a legitimate expectation of such consultation in the future.

However, the Council’s second argument did not depend on either a promise or a past practice of consultation. The starting-point is that, if a decision-maker intends to take a decision which affects a person’s rights, the duty to act fairly (in earlier parlance “natural justice”) will usually be required by public law, which will imply such a duty into a statutory scheme even when none is expressly laid down.

Singh J considered a number of previous authorities, concluded that the SoS’s decision “fundamentally altered the nature of the commitment” which had previously been made by the SoS to fund capital projects, that the impact on the Council was “pressing and focussed”, that there was a small and limited class of local authorities that were affected by the SoS’s decision, and that (para 69): “To make the decision abruptly without consultation would, in the circumstances of the present case, be so unfair as to amount to an abuse of power”.

Singh J went on to consider whether the requirements of a lawful consultation had been met.  He concluded that they had not.  Consultation had not been at a formative stage of the decision-making process.  The decision letter invited representations only as to how the impact of the decision might be mitigated in the Council’s case, but not about the principle of the decision itself.

As regards the PSED, Singh J said:

“93.      I accept the defendant’s submissions in relation to this ground of challenge. As the authorities have frequently stressed, what is “due regard” is such regard as is appropriate in all the circumstances. In my judgement, the defendant was not required to have regard to the matters set out in section 149 of the Equality Act for two main reasons.

94.       First, the suggested impact is a contingent and indirect one. The defendant’s decision was a financial one. It will frequently be the case that the central government makes financial decisions of a general kind which leave up to individual local authorities the manner of their implementation. The relevant authorities may have a choice about whether they cut or reduce a particular service or how they find alternative funding for it if they feel that service should continue. The local authority concerned may well have to perform the Public Sector Equality Duty itself before it decides which of various courses it should take in order to implement the financial decision of the central government.

95.          Secondly, and in any event, the defendant was entitled to take the view that he did, that the detrimental consequences which the claimant suggests would flow from the decision under challenge are not only contingent but lie some years ahead in the future, given the funding that the defendant has made available to the claimant until 2015. The defendant’s simple submission was that, in those circumstances, the duty may arise in 2015 but cannot be said to have arisen now. There are too many vicissitudes in life for a court to be able to say that the defendant has breached the Public Sector Equality Duty as things stand at present. I accept that submission by the defendant.”

 

Public Sector Equality Duty (“PSED”)

June 13th, 2012 by James Goudie KC in Local Authority Powers

In R (Siwak) v Newham LBC (2012) EWHC 1520 (Admin) Cranston J held that the local authority had not failed to comply with the PSED under s149 of Equality Act 2010.  Policies under formulation were the subject of equality analysis.  It was not for the Court to micro-manage the process.  Consultation before proposals were formulated would have been premature.

 

 

Compulsory Acquisition of Land

May 28th, 2012 by James Goudie KC in Land, Goods and Services

In R (Barnsley MBC) v SoS for CLG [2012] EWHC 1366 (Admin), Judgment of Foskett J on 24 May 2012, the Council made a CPO in respect of land in its area registered as a Village Green.  The Council relied upon s121 of LGA 1972 and s2 of LGA 2000.  The SoS took the view, however, that these provisions did not provide an enabling power.  He regarded the CPO as invalid, and declined to confirm it.  The Council brought judicial review proceedings to challenge his view.  The Judge agreed with the SoS.

The Council could acquire land by agreement under s120 of LGA 1972 for the purposes of the benefit, improvement or development of their area.  That was not, however, enough for a CPO under s121, as s121(2)(a) made clear.  The question therefore was whether s2 of LGA 2000 could be invoked.  Foskett J concluded that s2 was not intended to alter the LGA 1972 situation in relation to CPOs.

 

Community Right to Challenge

May 22nd, 2012 by James Goudie KC in Council Tax and Rates

On 17 May 2012, in exercise of powers conferred by sections 81 and 235 of the Localism Act 2011, the Secretary of State made the Community Right to Challenge (Expressions of Interest and Excluded Services) (England) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/1313.  They will come into force on 27 June 2012.  Regulation 3 and Schedule 1 specify requirements for expressions of interest for the purposes of Section 81(1)(b).  Regulation 4 and Schedule 2 specify services that are to be excluded for the purposes of Section 81(5), in some cases only until 1 April 2014.  The Secretary of State has also issued Statutory Guidance on the Community Right to Challenge.

RATES AND COUNCIL TAX

The Local Government Finance Bill, carried over from the last Session, completed its passage through the House of Commons on 21 May 2012.  In conjunction with the Bill, CLG has issued numerous publications. With respect to the Business Rates Retention Scheme they are:

·                      The economic benefits of local business rates retention

·                      The central and local shares of business rates  – A Statement of Intent

·                      Renewable energy projects – A Statement of Intent

·                      Pooling Prospectus

·                      The Safety Net and Levy – A Statement of Intent

With respect to Localising Support for Council Tax” they are:

·                      A Statement of Intent

·                      Funding arrangements consultation

·                      Taking work incentives into account

·                      Vulnerable people – key local authority duties (including, Chapter 2, the Public Sector Equality Duty, Chapter 3, duty to mitigate the effects of child poverty, Chapter 4, the Armed Forces Covenant, and Chapter 5, duty to prevent homelessness).

 

Council Tax and Public Procurement

May 14th, 2012 by James Goudie KC in Best Value, Council Tax and Rates

COUNCIL TAX

In Harrow LBC v Ayiku [2012] EWHC 1200 (Admin) Sales J held that the word “or” in the Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992, art 3 Class N, had a disjunctive meaning, therefore it was sufficient for the non-British spouse of a foreign student to satisfy one or other of the two conditions, namely being prevented from taking paid employment or being prevented from claiming benefits, in order to qualify as a “relevant person” who was exempted from liability to pay council tax.

PUBLIC PROCUREMENT

In Case C-368/10, Commission v Netherlands, Decision on 10 May 2012, the ECJ has reaffirmed, in the context of the supply to and management for a public authority of automatic coffee machines, that “both the principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency which flows from it require the subject-matter of each contract and the criteria governing its award to be clearly defined from the beginning of the award procedure … the formulation of the award criteria being such as to allow all reasonably well-informed tenderers exercising ordinary care to know the exact scope thereof and thus to interpret them in the same way”.

 

Queen’s Speech, Local Government Finance and Elections

May 11th, 2012 by James Goudie KC in Elections and Bylaws

QUEEN’S SPEECH

Bills already introduced pursuant to the Queen’s Speech on 9 May 2012 include Local Government Finance Bill and Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, both accompanied by Explanatory Notes, which in each case address ECHR compatibility.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

Most of the Local Government Finance Bill applies only in relation to England.

The Bill will introduce a rates retention scheme, enabling local authorities to retain a proportion of the business rates generated in their area.  The Secretary of State (“the SoS”) will be required to prepare a local government finance report each year, which sets out the central and local share percentages of non-domestic rates. It will also set out which payments are required to be made by billing authorities and major precepting authorities (“relevant authorities”) to the SoS, into the main non-domestic rating account, and which payments are required to be made by the SoS to relevant authorities, from the main non-domestic rating account. The SoS will also be required to establish a levy account and make regulations as to whether payments are required from any relevant authority. Payments may be made from the levy account for “safety net authorities” in accordance with regulations to be made by the SoS. The SoS may also make regulations as to transitional protection payments for authorities, to take account of transitional relief. Billing authorities will also be required to make payments to major precepting authorities, under regulations to be made by the SoS.  A number of relevant authorities may also be designated as a pool of authorities, which will then be treated for most purposes of the new provisions as a single authority. The SoS may designate certain areas of England and provide through regulations that a proportion of the rates are to be retained by billing authorities in those areas. Similarly, the SoS may also designate certain classes of hereditament and provide that rates are to be retained by billing authorities whose area includes the designated class.

The Bill also contains provisions, in the context of abolition of council tax benefit, with respect to council tax and council tax reduction schemes and discounts.  The Bill includes powers for the SoS to make requirements about the schemes which local authorities must make by 31 January 2013 relating to the financial year beginning on 1 April 2013. A scheme must set out the classes of person who are entitled to a reduction, the reductions which are to apply to those classes and the procedure by which a person may apply for a reduction. The SoS has power to prescribe classes of persons which must be included in a scheme and the reductions which must apply to them.  A billing authority must consult before making a scheme and each financial year it must consider whether to revise or to replace its scheme. The SoS has power to make provision for the procedure for preparing a scheme or a revision to a scheme.

ELECTIONS

The Electoral Registration and Administration Bill extends to both England and Wales.

Part 1 of the Bill relates to Individual Electoral Registration.  The provisions will require that each elector must apply individually to be registered to vote after the transition to the new system; make transitional arrangements over two years, including using data matching to verify entries, and providing for the ‘carry forward’ of electors who are not automatically verified and fail to register under the new system in the first year, so that they remain on the first register published under the new system (likely to be the register used for the 2015 general election); create a legislative framework to allow alternative channels for registration, such as online registration, to be offered; provide for the use of data matching to verify applications, check existing entries in registers and find individuals who do not currently appear on the register; make provision for an annual canvass which is compatible with the new registration system and provide a power to amend or abolish the annual canvass in future, subject to a report by the Electoral Commission and an order requiring the approval by a resolution of each House of Parliament; ensure that all those wishing to vote by post or proxy will need to be registered under the new registration system to utilise these voting methods after the first annual canvass under the new system; and introduce a civil penalty for those who fail to make an application when required to do so by an Electoral Registration Officer (“ERO”).

The Bill also includes provisions in Part 2 in relation to the administration and conduct of elections.  The clauses relating to the administration and conduct of elections include provisions to allow Police Community Support Officers to enter polling stations (as police constables can currently); to remove the automatic postponement of parish and community council elections in England and Wales that currently occurs when a Parliamentary or European Parliamentary general election falls on the ordinary day for local government elections; to enable regulations to be made to place EROs under a duty to give notifications about rejected postal votes, and specify the circumstances where this duty arises; and to provide that the SoS may, upon a recommendation from the Electoral Commission, withhold or reduce a Returning Officer’s fee for reasons of poor performance.

 

Standards

May 4th, 2012 by James Goudie KC in Standards

In R (Calver) v Adjudication Panel for Wales [2012] EWHC 1172 (Admin) Mr Calver was a member of Manorbier Community Council who successfully challenged the decision of the Panel to dismiss his appeal against a decision by Prembrokeshire County Council Standards Committee censuring him for a number of comments or blogs posted by him on a website he owned and controlled.  Beatson J said, at para 5 of his Judgment: “The overarching question before the court is whether the defendant’s decision that the claimant’s comments put him in breach of the Code of Conduct erred in law or is otherwise flawed in public law terms. The answer to that question principally depends on whether the Panel’s decision failed to give sufficient weight to the claimant’s right to free expression under the common law and Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (“the Convention”). This in turn involves considering whether the defendant erred in finding the comments did not constitute political expression attracting an enhanced level of protection under Article 10, and whether or not they attract that enhanced level of protection, whether the decision that thirteen of the comments broke the Code of Conduct and to censure the claimant was a disproportionate interference with his right under Article 10.”

Beatson J ruled (paras 66-67) that (1) the Committee and the Panel were entitled to conclude that Cllr Calver’s comments breached the Code of Conduct: they were sarcastic and mocking; (2) the Panel was entitled to take a cumulative view of the effect of the postings: the use of a sarcastic tone about colleagues on the Council over a long period would justify a conclusion that Cllr Calver had not shown respect and consideration for his colleagues on the Council; and (3) the Panel was entitled to conclude that the tone of the postings publicly ridiculed his fellow members, particularly in the light of the number of postings and their cumulative effect.

However, it was necessary then to go on to consider whether, a finding of breach of the Code of Conduct being prima facie an infringement of Article 10, it was justified.   Beatson J said: 

“73.     It is common ground that the court, in considering whether the Panel failed to accord sufficient weight to the claimant’s rights to freedom of expression, has to decide for itself whether those rights were accorded sufficient weight, having due regard to the decision of the Panel. The court must “have due regard” to the judgment of the primary decision-maker, in this case the Panel. This is because the Panel, the statutory regulator, consists of persons identified by Parliament to apply the Code because of its knowledge and experience of local government: … But “due regard” does not mean that the process is only one of review: it is the court which has to decide whether the Panel has violated the claimant’s right to freedom of expression.

74.       The Code seeks to maintain standards and to ensure that the conduct of public life at the local government level, including political debate, does not fall below a minimum level so as … “to engender public confidence in local democracy”. … There is a clear public interest in maintaining confidence in local government. But in assessing what conduct should be proscribed and the extent to which sarcasm and ridicule should be, it is necessary to bear in mind the importance of freedom of political expression or speech in the political sphere …”

“76.     It is in the context of what constitutes “respect and consideration” and “bringing your office or authority into disrepute” in a local government context that the Panel’s expertise is of particular relevance. …”

Beatson J went on, however, to find that the Panel had fallen into error in a number of respects.  He concluded (para 80) that the Panel took an over-narrow view of what amounts to political expression, and (para 81) that no account was taken in the Panel’s decision about the need for politicians to have thicker skins than others.  Those errors limited the weight that could be given to its findings.  It thus fell to the Court to determine the issue of proportionately according to the Panel’s decision less weight than it would otherwise have.  Beatson J concluded (para 84):  “… in the light of the strength of the right to freedom of expression, particularly in the present context, and the fact that the majority of the comments posted were directed at other members of the Community Council, the Panel’s decision that they broke the Code is a disproportionate interference with the claimant’s rights under Article 10 of the Convention.”

 

 

Public Sector Equality Duty ‘PSED’

April 25th, 2012 by James Goudie KC in Local Authority Powers

In R (Greenwich Community Law Centre) v Greenwich LBC [2012] EWCA Civ 496 the Court of Appeal held that the Council had had “due regard to the PSED when making changes to its funding of community legal advice services”.  At para 30 Elias LJ said:

“I would emphasise the need for the court to ask whether as a matter of substance there has been compliance; it is not a tick box exercise.  At the same time the courts must ensure that they do not micro-manage the exercise. Furthermore,, … it is only if a characteristic or combination of characteristics is likely to arise in the exercise of the public function that they need be taken into consideration. I would only add the qualification that there may be cases where that possibility exists in which case there may be a need for further investigation before that characteristic can be ignored. …”

At para 35 Elias LJ said:

“The purpose of the duty is to require consideration of equality implications at the time policy is drafted. The fact that it is a continuing duty does not mean that there has to be further detailed consideration when the general framework is made concrete, or whenever there are minor changes of detail. It would make administration intolerable and grossly inefficient if every aspect of policy left to officers’ discretion had automatically to be returned for further consideration of the equality implications.”

Legitimate Expectation

On whether there is a substantive legitimate expectation on the basis of a representation made by a public authority, see R (Godfrey) v Southwark LBC [2012] EWCA Civ 500.  Pill LJ said:

“51.      A rigorous standard is to be applied when a substantive legitimate expectation is claimed on the basis of a representation or promise by a public authority. The duty of public authorities to exercise powers in the public interest must be kept in mind. Only when, in the court’s view, to fail to give effect to the promise would be so unfair as to amount to an abuse of power, should it override other considerations …

52.       While the approach to legitimate expectation must be fact sensitive, … an earlier approach of the local planning authority to an issue, even if amounting to a planning policy, cannot have primacy over the statutory duty of the council to assess the current situation.”

 

 

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »