Campbell Park Parish Council, R (on the application of) v Milton Keynes Council

A community governance review must comply with the statutory sequence and time limits. Proposals or provisional recommendations made during consultation do not become statutory recommendations merely because the council later acts on them. The statutory recommendation must be one of the alternatives specified by Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, and must be published with sufficient steps taken to inform interested persons. Until that has occurred, the principal council cannot lawfully give effect to the recommendation under section 86. A failure to complete those steps produces no effective decision capable of being implemented by order.

Campbell Park Parish Council sought judicial review of Milton Keynes Council’s decision of 8 November 2011 to transfer Willen, Willen Lake and Newlands from Campbell Park Parish to Great Linford Parish. The council had delegated the conduct of a community governance review and the making of its statutory recommendation to a working group. The working group first made proposals or provisional recommendations for further consultation, then later resolved to recommend that the areas remain in Campbell Park. That later recommendation had not been separately published or notified to interested persons as required by section 93(7). The central issue was whether the full council could lawfully adopt the later recommendation or instead rely retrospectively on the earlier provisional recommendation.

1. Claim succeeded. The decision of Milton Keynes Council dated 8 November 2011 to transfer Willen from Campbell Park Parish to Great Linford Parish was quashed.

2. The statutory scheme in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 is highly prescriptive. A review must begin with published terms of reference, include consultation with local electors and other interested persons, conclude through publication of recommendations within 12 months, and make one of the specified recommendations concerning the existing parish.

3. The council’s additional consultation stages were not prohibited, but they created a distinction between proposals or provisional recommendations and the statutory recommendation required by section 88. Neither a proposal nor a provisional recommendation is itself a statutory recommendation.

4. The working group’s final recommendation could not lawfully be adopted on 8 November because, although publication of the council agenda might have satisfied section 93(7)(a), there was no indication that the council had taken sufficient steps under section 93(7)(b) to inform persons interested in the review. The final recommendation therefore lacked the required publicity and notification.

5. The earlier provisional recommendation could not retrospectively acquire statutory effect merely because the final recommendation was ineffective. The working group and full council had intended the earlier material to be proposals for further consultation, not the statutory recommendation. No effective decision had therefore been made which could subsequently be implemented by order under section 86. The review would have to start again if pursued.

6. Costs were awarded to the claimant, subject to deduction of £1,500 and a further deduction of 10 per cent from the net sum.