Partingdale Lane Residents' Association, R (on the application of) v Barnet London Borough Council

A public authority may have a lawful statutory power even where its internal constitution allocates the function to another body. The question remains whether the power was exercised lawfully.

Consultation required by statute must take place while proposals remain formative. The decision-maker must retain an open mind on the issue of principle, provide sufficient information and reasons, allow adequate time for response, and conscientiously consider objections. A legitimate predisposition or policy commitment is permissible, but a closed mind is not. Later scrutiny or consideration by officers will not necessarily cure predetermination, particularly where the original decision-maker remains involved.

The claimant, an unincorporated residents’ association, challenged three traffic orders made by Barnet London Borough Council under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The orders reopened Partingdale Lane and imposed weight and speed restrictions.

The challenge concerned the Council’s constitutional arrangements, its policies, consultation, predetermination, factual assessment and rationality. An interim suspension had previously been granted. The central issues were whether the Council had lawfully delegated and exercised the relevant executive function, and whether consultation occurred while the proposal remained at a formative stage.

1. Delegation. The Council’s constitution allocated the relevant executive function to an area environment sub-committee, but that was only the starting point. Section 15(9) of the Local Government Act 2000 permitted the function to be exercised by persons empowered under the Act, including an executive member and an officer. The withdrawal of the matter from the planning and environment committee was lawful, and the decision not to assign it to the area sub-committee was not irrational.
2. Policy and rationality. A traffic authority must balance competing and potentially conflicting policies. Taking one policy, such as reducing rat running, out of context did not establish unlawfulness. The Council had considered its policies on professional advice and its conclusion was not irrational.
3. Consultation and predetermination. The principles in R v Brent London Borough Council, ex parte Gunning and R (on the application of Wainwright) v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council applied to statutory consultation. Consultation had to occur while proposals were formative, with sufficient information and reasons, adequate time for response, and conscientious consideration with a receptive mind. A proposal was not formative if the decision-maker had already closed his mind on the issue of principle.
4. Councillor Coleman had gone beyond legitimate political predisposition and weight attached to an election commitment. He had predetermined the principle that Partingdale Lane should be reopened before consultation began. The later consultation concerned implementation details rather than the principle itself.
5. The scrutiny committee’s review did not provide the public with the required lawful consultation and could only have referred the matter back to Councillor Coleman. Later consideration by officers did not cure the defect because objections of principle were treated as raising nothing new, substantial objections required referral back to Councillor Coleman, and he remained involved in the delegated decision-making process.
6. The court therefore allowed the application and quashed all three orders. The Council was required to reconsider the matter in accordance with the law, without Councillor Coleman’s involvement, and after lawful and fair consultation. The remaining factual and traffic-safety grounds were not determined. The defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

The judgment was a first-instance decision in the Administrative Court. Permission to appeal was granted because the case raised issues concerning the impact of the Local Government Act 2000 and the scope of consultation obligations.