Technoprint Plc & Anor v Leeds City Council & Anor

A local authority’s internal scheme of delegation need not be approved by express resolution where its constitutional rules require the scheme to be agreed. Agreement may arise through express words, conduct, or a combination of both. The court may also refuse relief where an alleged procedural defect is historic, causes no demonstrated prejudice, and would destabilise numerous decisions made under an established scheme. Statutory requirements concerning the availability of council reports must be construed according to their wording. A failure to make reports available five clear days before a meeting is not necessarily established where the statute postpones public inspection until copies are available to councillors.

The claimants sought judicial review to quash planning permission granted by Leeds City Council for the demolition of an existing building and construction of 12 flats. Ground two alleged that the council had no valid scheme authorising officers to determine planning applications and that the relevant officers therefore lacked authority.

The challenge concerned the council’s Constitution, its Council Procedure Rules, the adoption and amendment of its officer delegation scheme, and alleged non-compliance with sections 100B(1) and 100B(3) of the Local Government Act 1972. The court also considered the possible consequences of procedural non-compliance and the effect of established reliance on the scheme.

1. Ground two dismissed. The court held that a valid officer delegation scheme existed when the planning permission was granted. The Constitution adopted in December 2001 contained such a scheme. The Full Council subsequently approved amendments to Part 3, section 2C at its meeting on 19 May 2003.
2. Rule 1.1(i) of the Council Procedure Rules did not require approval by express resolution. In its context, “agree” bore its ordinary and natural meaning. Agreement could be established by express words, conduct, or a combination of both. The Full Council’s approval of constitutional amendments, its subsequent conduct, publication of the amended Constitution, and the absence of objection supported the conclusion that the scheme had been agreed.
3. The council’s practice between 2003 and 2007, of approving amendments without re-approving the entire delegation scheme annually, continued to constitute agreement of the scheme. The Constitution made clear that Full Council had responsibility for adopting and changing it, and there was no evidence that that power had been delegated.
4. Even if the scheme had not been validly agreed, relief would have been refused. Applying the approach described by Lord Hailsham LC in London & Clydeside Estates v Aberdeen D.C. [1980] 1 WLR 182, the court considered the nature of the alleged defect, the lapse of approximately six years, the absence of demonstrated prejudice, and the reliance placed on the scheme in making thousands of decisions.
5. The evidence did not establish a breach of sections 100B(1) and 100B(3) of the Local Government Act 1972. Section 100B(3) did not require reports to be available to councillors at least five clear days before the meeting; public inspection was subject to reports first being available to members. The court declined to decide definitively what consequence a breach of those subsections would have had.
6. R v Swansea City Council ex parte Elitestone Ltd [1993] 2 PLR 65 concerned section 100B(4), which related to agendas and adequate notice of business. It did not establish that sections 100B(1) and 100B(3) had the same effect. Ground two was therefore not made out, and no relief was granted on it. Directions were to be given concerning the remaining grounds.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. The judgment determined ground two and indicated that directions would be given for the remaining grounds.