Franklin v Minister of Town and Country Planning

A minister’s functions in designating a new town under the New Towns Act 1946 are administrative, not judicial or quasi-judicial. The judicial doctrine of bias therefore does not apply. The statutory question is whether the minister genuinely considered the objections and the inspector’s report.

A public local inquiry under the First Schedule concerns the objections to the proposed order. Its purpose is to provide further information for the minister’s decision. The minister need not present evidence supporting the draft order; objectors must state their objections and adduce any supporting evidence.

The owners and occupiers of property at Stevenage challenged the Stevenage New Town (Designation) Order 1946, made by the Minister under the New Towns Act 1946. They alleged that the Minister’s earlier public statements showed prejudgment and that the statutory public inquiry was defective because no evidence supporting the draft order had been called on his behalf.

Henn Collins J quashed the Order, holding that the Minister exercised a quasi-judicial function and had not considered the objections with an open mind. The Court of Appeal restored the Order, finding that the judge had misunderstood the evidence concerning water supply and sewage disposal and had misconstrued the Minister’s subsequent letter. The owners appealed to the House of Lords.

1. The appeal was dismissed unanimously and the Court of Appeal’s judgment was affirmed. Lord Thankerton delivered the leading speech. Lord Porter and Lord Uthwatt expressly concurred in it, while Lord du Parcq and Lord Normand also concurred.

2. Per Lord Thankerton, the Minister’s duties under section 1 and the First Schedule to the New Towns Act 1946 were purely administrative. No judicial or quasi-judicial duty was imposed. The language of judicial bias was therefore irrelevant. Bias properly denotes a departure from the even-handed justice required of a judicial or quasi-judicial decision-maker adjudicating between parties.

3. The statutory procedure required the Minister to cause a public inquiry to be held and to consider the inspector’s report. A challenge could succeed if the Minister had not considered the report and objections, or if his mind was so foreclosed that he gave them no genuine consideration. The evidence established neither circumstance. His political speech before enactment of the legislation was consistent with an intention later to perform the statutory duties, while his letter and affidavit evidenced careful consideration of the objections and report.

4. The objections concerning water supply and sewage disposal did not establish that the scheme was impracticable. The Minister was entitled to conclude that those matters were not fatal to designation and could be addressed during the later development stage. His treatment of them therefore did not demonstrate a failure genuinely to consider the objections.

5. Per Lord Thankerton, paragraph 3 of the First Schedule required an inquiry concerning the objections to the proposed order. The inquiry existed to inform the Minister further, rather than to determine an issue between the Minister and the objectors. The Minister was not obliged to call evidence supporting the draft order. The objectors bore responsibility for stating their objections and adducing such evidence as they considered appropriate. The procedural provisions incorporated from the Local Government Act 1933 did not enlarge the inquiry’s statutory scope.

6. The appellants were ordered to pay the Minister’s costs of the appeal.

1. House of Lords: The appeal was dismissed unanimously, and the Court of Appeal’s restoration of the designation Order was affirmed: [1948] AC 87.

2. Court of Appeal: The court set aside Henn Collins J’s decision and restored the Stevenage New Town (Designation) Order 1946. No citation is stated in the judgment.

3. High Court: Henn Collins J quashed the Order on the basis that the Minister’s function was quasi-judicial and that he had not considered the objections with an open mind. No citation is stated in the judgment.