Strict adherence to the terms of a scheme of public speaking may in appropriate circumstances amount to procedural unfairness
A local planning authority (“LPA”) is more likely than not to have adopted a scheme of public speaking at meetings of its planning committee when it is making decisions on planning applications and enforcement matters. The purpose of such a scheme is to enable any member of the public interested in the decision to address the committee. Typically, the scheme will require the individual to give notice of his wish to speak a minimum number of days before the meeting, it will lay down an order of speaking and may or may not make provisions for the circulation of papers to the committee members. More controversially, from the point of view of speakers, each will be restricted in terms of time allowed. Typically this is between three and five minutes, and speakers are usually barred by the terms of the scheme from questioning members, officers or other speakers.
In Norbrook Laboratories Ltd v Carlisle City Council [2013] EWHC 1113 (Admin) the claimant applied unsuccessfully under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash a TPO made by the LPA. One of its grounds of challenge was the assertion that the LPA had failed to act with procedural fairness by not affording the claimant the opportunity to address its objections fully before the planning committee. More specifically, the thee-minute time limit imposed, given the complexity of the issues involved, denied the claimant a fair hearing.
The court rejected this limb of challenge holding, on the facts, that there had been no procedural unfairness. The claimant was made aware in advance of the time limit, and had also been allowed to advance its legal arguments in writing at the same time. The judge further noted that, in principle, it was open to a LPA to adopt a scheme of public speaking with a three-minute time limit. He went on to point out, however, that particular circumstances might arise where the requirements of the common law duty of fairness would not be satisfied unless an extension of time was allowed. That would depend upon all of the circumstances of the case, including whether – as in this instance – the objector had been given an opportunity to address any complex legal factual issue in writing at the same time.
John Martin
