R v Alconbury v Secretary of State for the Environment, [2001] UKHL 23
Citation:R v Alconbury v Secretary of State for the Environment, [2001] UKHL 23
Rule of thumb:Are Ministers allowed to consider planning applications? Yes, local Council generally consider planning applications, but a Minister can call in any planning application they so wish.
Background facts:
The basic facts of this case were that there was a planning application put in for the approval of an infrastructure planning design, a compulsory purchase of land and the building of a new railway line. The Minister called this application in to determine it.
Judgment:
The Court held that even although the minister was the policy maker and the decision maker, this system was still compliant with the article 6 right to a fair hearing. In the UK, policy makers are allowed to apply their own policy, and this is viable because it is subject to judicial review as a safeguard.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘48. The adoption of planning policy and its application to particular facts is quite different from the judicial function. It is for elected Members of Parliament and ministers to decide what are the objectives of planning policy, objectives which may be of national, environmental, social or political significance and for these objectives to be set out in legislation, primary and secondary, in ministerial directions and in planning policy guidelines. Local authorities, inspectors and the Secretary of State are all required to have regard to policy in taking particular planning decisions and it is easy to overstate the difference between the application of a policy in decisions taken by the Secretary of State and his inspector... 50. It has long been established that if the Secretary of State misinterprets the legislation under which he purports to act, or if he takes into account matters irrelevant to his decision or refuses or fails to take account of matters relevant to his decision, or reaches a perverse decision, the court may set his decision aside. Even if he fails to follow necessary procedural steps—failing to give notice of a hearing or to allow an opportunity for evidence to be called or cross-examined, or for representations to be made or to take any step which fairness and natural justice requires, the court may interfere. The legality of the decision and the procedural steps must be subject to sufficient judicial control. But none of the judgments before the European Court of Human Rights requires that the court should have "full jurisdiction" to review policy or the overall merits of a planning decision... 52. This principle does not go as far as to provide for a complete rehearing on the merits of the decision. Judicial control does not need to go so far. It should not do so unless Parliament specifically authorises it in particular areas’. Lord Slynn
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.