Members of Parliament shouldn’t attempt to privately lobby planning ministers about their decisions, the Court of Appeal ruled today.The ruling contradicts an earlier judgment made by ex-Labour MP and former solicitor general Ross Cranston (now Cranston J), in which he said that the lobbying of ministers by MPs is “part and parcel” of parliamentary democracy.
The case was brought by renewable energy company Broadview Energy.
Broadview wants to build a five-turbine windfarm at Spring Farm Ridge between Greatworth and Helmdon in Northamptonshire but was refused permission in December 2014 by minister Kris Hopkins, acting on behalf of then communities secretary Eric Pickles. Hopkins was going against the advice of a planning inspector who backed the project.
Broadview claims that Hopkins’ decision was biased because he had received correspondence from local MP Andrea Leadsom without disclosing it and met her in the House of Commons tea room, where she expressed her opposition to the scheme. Leadsom is a prominent opponent of onshore wind farms.
They lost their case in 2015 when Cranston J ruled that Leadsom had been acting perfectly properly as a diligent constituency MP when she lobbied Hopkins, and Hopkins had done nothing wrong by listening to her.
However, in today’s ruling Longmore J disagreed.
“I would not endorse the part of [Cranston J’s] judgment in which he said that the lobbying of Ministers by MPs was part and parcel of the representative role of constituency MP with its implication that such lobbying was permissible even when the minister is making a controversial planning application,” he said.
“MPs should not, with respect, be in any different position from other interested parties.”
Hopkins should have “politely” told Leadsom that he couldn’t listen to her objections.
McCombe LJ, who was also hearing the case, wrote in the judgment that he agreed. He said that, while it is fair for MPs to lobby ministers on “ordinary” constituency matters, the rule should not apply to planning appeals.
Despite disagreeing with Cranston J’s reasoning, the Appeals judges refused to overturn Hopkins’ decision blocking the turbine project because the meeting took place a year before Hopkins made the decision, and therefore didn’t influence him.
“In these circumstance I find it impossible to conclude that the tea room conversation played any part in his decision making process”, Longmore J said.
Broadview Energy Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Court of Appeal (Longmore LJ, Lewison LJ, McCombe LJ) 22 June 2016
Jeremy Pike (instructed by Eversheds LLP) for the claimant.
Daniel Kolinsky QC (instructed by Government Legal Service) for the first defendant
Richard Honey (instructed by public access) for the third defendant