Offerton Park Parish Council, R (On the Application Of) v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

A decision to abolish an established parish cannot rationally be based on the majority view of respondents to a consultation where most electors did not respond. The non-response of the wider electorate is a material consideration. A principal council may decide what weight to give different forms of response, but it must not treat a majority of respondents as representative of the majority of residents without a rational basis. An absolute majority for abolition is not always required. Clear and sustained support from a sufficient body of the electorate may justify abolition where the majority is indifferent and the statutory guidance has been properly considered.

The claimant sought judicial review of an order made by the defendant under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. The order purported to abolish Offerton Park parish and dissolve its parish council following a community governance review and consultation exercises.

The claimant alleged irrationality, failure to take account of material considerations and inadequate consultation. The defendant contended that the decision was lawful and that the claim had not been brought promptly. The central issues were whether the consultation rationally supported the conclusion that residents favoured abolition, whether the consultation was adequate, and whether relief should be refused for delay.

1. Ground 1 succeeded. The defendant had treated the majority of those who responded to the consultation as representing the majority of parish residents. That conclusion could not rationally be drawn where about 75% of the electorate did not respond. The proper inference was that the majority had not felt sufficiently strongly either to retain or abolish the parish council. That non-response was a material consideration which the defendant was required to take into account: paras [45]–[50].
2. The defendant was entitled to decide that formal anonymous responses should receive greater weight than informal responses. It was not entitled to infer from those responses that the majority of the electorate, or the public generally, favoured abolition. The court could not be satisfied that the same decision would have been reached had the consultation results been correctly understood: paras [48]–[51].
3. An absolute majority in favour of abolition was not a legal prerequisite. If there were good reason, clear and sustained local support from a sufficient body of the electorate could justify abolition while the majority remained indifferent, provided proper regard was paid to the statutory guidance. This was a qualification of the court’s reasoning rather than a necessary basis for the decision: para [52].
4. Ground 2 failed. The consultation was adequate. The first consultation addressed abolition of the parish and the second addressed abolition or retention of the parish council. In the circumstances, retaining a parish without a council would have served no sensible purpose, given the size of the electorate. The consultation materials sufficiently explained the role and responsibilities of a parish council and identified the other representative bodies. There was no requirement to reproduce or specifically draw attention to paragraph 121 of the guidance: para [55].
5. The claim was brought within the three-month period and promptly in the circumstances. Although the judge considered that the substantive decision would ordinarily run from the resolution rather than the ancillary order, the point was academic. The defendant had chosen to proceed despite the threatened proceedings and had therefore assumed the litigation risk. The prejudice caused by refusing relief would outweigh the general council-tax prejudice: paras [57]–[62].
6. Permission was granted and the reorganisation order was quashed: para [63].

First-instance judicial review proceedings. The judgment does not state any appellate history.