The decision in R (on the application of Joicey) v Northumberland County Council [2014] EWHC 3657 (Admin) illustrates the likely consequences when information that by law is to be accessible to members of the public is not available in a timely fashion to enable them to participate effectively in democratic decision making. In short, it was held that a claimant in this position is entitled to have the decision quashed unless the decision maker can demonstrate that it would inevitably have come to the same conclusion even if the information had been available. (The probability that the decision would have been the same is not enough.)
In this case, the relevant statutory provisions were those contained in Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 (“the right to know provisions”) which cover, inter alia, access to meeting agendas, connected reports and background papers. The information sought by the claimant was contained in an environmental noise assessment report prepared by the applicant’s consultants (“the Report”).
The local planning authority (“LPA”) had granted planning permission for the erection of a wind turbine on farmland. The claimant had objected to the proposals. Noise was an issue; hence the applicant commissioned the Report and provided a copy to the LPA. The claimant became aware of its existence, but was not supplied by the LPA with a copy until the day before its planning committee was due to discuss the planning application. (At the same time the Report was uploaded to the LPA’s public website.)
The meeting of the planning committee took place, despite the claimant’s request for it to be adjourned. The claimant exercised his right to address the committee for his allotted five minutes, during which he outlined what he considered were flaws in the Report. The committee then voted to grant planning permission.
The court held that there had been breaches of the right to know provisions, and quashed the grant of planning permission. (It also highlighted a breach of the undertaking in the LPA’s statement of community involvement prepared pursuant to section 18(1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, that undertaking – in the view of the judge – giving rise to a legitimate expectation.)
In so doing, the court rejected arguments submitted on behalf of the LPA that its decision would inevitably have been the same had the report been available as it should have been. Written representations from the claimant, rather than merely a brief oral presentation, could have led to further input from the officers, and that further input could have resulted in a rethink by the planning committee.
John Martin is planning law consultant
