Buck, R (On the Application Of) v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

A local authority’s full council may allocate, reduce or increase funds through the budget, but it may not direct the executive to spend those funds in a particular way or thereby reverse a lawful executive decision. The budget process concerns calculating the council tax requirement and allocating resources, not micro-managing executive functions. A budget amendment is not a policy framework plan or strategy merely because it concerns a significant service. A reserved plan or strategy must be sufficiently high-level and formally and expressly adopted by the full council.

The claimant, a regular user of Scawthorpe Library, challenged the mayor and cabinet’s decision not to spend additional funds inserted into Doncaster’s 2012–13 budget by the full council. The amendment followed an earlier lawful executive decision to change the delivery model for library services.

The claimant argued that the amendment required the mayor to restore the former service arrangements, including reopening two closed libraries, or alternatively constituted a plan or strategy reserved to the full council. She also relied on the improper-purpose principle. The central issue was whether the mayor’s decision fell within paragraphs 2 or 3 of Schedule 4 to the Local Authorities (Functions and Responsibilities) (England) Regulations 2000.

1. Claim dismissed. The mayor and cabinet had lawfully decided not to spend the additional library funding in the manner sought by the claimant.
2. The statutory budget function required the full council to calculate the authority’s financial requirements and allocate resources under the Local Government Finance Act 1992. It permitted the full council to amend expenditure allocations, but did not permit it to require the executive to spend money on a particular function or in a particular way.
3. The amendment created, at most, a contingency fund. It did not amount to a binding direction to spend the money, so the mayor’s decision was not contrary to the authority’s budget within paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the 2000 Regulations.
4. The amendment was neither a plan nor a strategy under paragraph 3 of Schedule 4. It was operational rather than high-level, was not treated as a separate plan or strategy, and had not been formally reserved to the full council.
5. The Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food principle did not assist the claimant. The mayor acted for the statutory purpose of exercising an executive function. Treating the full council’s direction as binding would itself have unlawfully fettered executive discretion.
6. The decision was rational and pursued a proper purpose. The application was dismissed.

First-instance judicial review decision. No prior or appellate decision is stated in the judgment.