Questions: Answers:

Did the secretary of state behave In reaching his decision the

fairly in reaching his decision
concerning the application for
planning permission?
This was more of a simple yes or
no question. And the answer is yes
he behaved fairly
secretary of state was not in breach
of any of the statutory rules, he had
act within his power whether it was
recovering the application or
differing from the inspectors
recommendation, schedule 6 3(1)
of the TCPA grants him the power
which states that if the (S.O.S)
deems fit he may determine that an
appeal shall be decided by him.

He has also behaved fairly as he did

not regard new representations the
need to notify parties did not fall on
him thus he did not contravene rule
17(5).
How should the secretary of state It is necessary for him to make it
deal with representations from local clear that he could not consider
parliament? representations unless it be made
available to all parties and he
should advise them to present it (if
the inquiry is not closed) to the
planning inspector (and if it is
closed) to the planning case work
division.
What are the general principles of Being Quasi-judicial , the ensuring
fairness under para 4 of the of a minister that any
guidance? representations (privately made),
evidence or information which he is
likely to take into consideration be
made available to all parties so that
parties may contemplate or
comment.
Did Mr Hopkins entertain privately No he did not
made representations?
Under the statutory rules, is the Under rule 17(4) he is not obliged
secretary of state obliged to take If he deems fit he may disregard
into account written representations them.
after the inquiry has closed?
What more is the secretary of state Notify the parties of any new
required to do under rule 17(5)? consideration or evidence he has
regarded affording to them an
opportunity to make new
representations.
Explain the similarity between rule The similarity is the duty of quasi-
17(5) and para 4 of the guidance? judicially behaving fairly: the
minister should not allow one party
to develop their case by making
representations without giving the
other an opportunity to consider or
comment, he needs to notify all the
parties of new evidence that he has
taken in regard.
What is the common law principle Audi Alteram Partem: the principle
that reflects general principle of that a minister when taking in
para 4 of the guidance? regard any decision should not only
listen to one side, but take into
account representations made from
both sides,.

Why was it ruled that the tea room
conversation and the lobbying
could not justify the quashing of
the secretary of states decision?
The chronology and the ministers
state of mind was taken into
account, when the tea room
conversation had occurred it was a
year before the minister was
imposed with providing a decision
and also was at a time which was
unlikely for either party to know if
Mr Pickles or Mr Hopkins would
 be the one giving the decision, the
lobbying had occurred when the
ministers mind was already made
although his decision letter stated
otherwise, anything that was said
then would not encourage his
decision and it was ruled rather
than to effect the decision Mrs
Leadsom was stressing the fact to
when the decision would be made.
According to Longmore why was There was no breach because the
there no breach of the statutory secretary of state did not differ with
rules by the secretary of state? any material fact that contributed to
the inspectors decision nor did he
regard any new representations thus
rule 17(5) did not arise. [the need to
notify parties].
Why was the ministers order Because of his failure to comply
quashed in the case of Errington? with the principle of common law,
which makes it incumbent on a
minister to listen to both sides
argument before reaching a
decision, however he had given his
decision while only listening to the
explanation given by the officials
and never provided the owner with
a chance to comment or state
otherwise.
According to Mr Pike, what was The fact that Mrs Leadsom had
considered unfair about the tea access to meet Mr Hopkins face to
room and lobbying? face and present him with her
views while broadview was refused
and did not have the opportunity to
meet Mr Hopkins personally.
State McCombes additional McCombe agrees that these two
observation of the tea room and activities are not enough to quash
lobbying.
Why does McCombe disagree with
the high courts judgment that
lobbying of ministers is part and
parcel of the representative role of
a constituency?
the secretary of states decision
however he holds that the decision
could have been in peril if the tea
room conversation had been more
closer to the date the decision was
taken.
He disagrees because the present
context of the case involves a
planning decision, which requires a
minister to adhere to the natural
rules of justice and fairness when
reaching a decision.

Questions: Answers:
Summarize LJ McCombes McCombes judgment is regarded
Judgment. on 3 points: 1st that the tea room
conversation and lobbying Is
undoubtedly considered a breach of
para 4 guidance and could have
quashed his decision if the
chronology was more closer to the
decision, 2nd he holds according to
para 4 that the same ruling should
apply to objectors thus
conversations are a clear
contravention, a minister should not
allow one side to make
representations while not affording
the other the same opportunity, 3rd
regarding cases that requires a
judge to behave fairly I disagree
with the high courts judge thoughts
on lobbying, the minister has to
behave fairly and should advise that
representations made should be
done according to the proper
 standards of fairness.

Why did the secretary of state His reasons for refusing the grant
refuse to give planning permission of planning permission were: the
to the appellant? harms the development project
would cause to heritage assets and
to the natural scenery of the area,
although it might not be important
when regarding the benefits of the
renewable energy, it does not
outweigh the requirements of the
planning act 1990.
What was the planning courts When deeming it to law the
opinion regarding the lobbying of lobbying between Mps could not
Mps? be considered as anything wrong
because it is important to their role
as a representative of the
constituency.
Why did Long more and McCombe Both judges concluded that it may
LJJ disagree with the above? be so if the matter concerned
constituent issues, however on
applications that requires a judge to
behave quasi judicially he has to
partake it according to the natural
rules of justice,, both sides should
be treated fairly and be afforded the
same opportunities.
Mention the relation between rule That a minister should not take into
17(5), para 4 guidance and the rules account representations or evidence
of natural justice. from one party, while not giving
another party an opportunity to
comment, he needs to notify all the
parties of any new representation
he has regarded and make it
available to them to make new
 representations or ask to re-open
the case.
According to Longmore why is Because the events (tea room and
there no bias on behalf of Mr lobbying) are not justifiable enough
Hopkins when he made the to quash his decision and this
decision. project was finely balanced, it is the
duty of a minister to make difficult
decisions concerning projects
which are finely balanced where
the outcome may not be acceptable.
However to the onlooker with clear
facts of this case he would not
regard it as one of bias.
Which court gave the decision in England & Wales, Court Of Appeal,
the case of Broadview and what Civil Division. All three judges
was the decision? had decided to dismiss this appeal.
How does Longmore apply to the He provides the case of Errington
principle of Audi Alteram Partem in which states of the ministers failure
the case of Broadview? to comply with the rule and only
listened to one sides argument thus
the quashing o the slum clearance
order, however in the case of
Broadview the minister had made
his decision on light and facts that
were available to all parties there
was no breach of the principle and
to the rules of natural justice.
On what grounds did Broadview He based his appeal on grounds
apply to quash the decision of the that the respondent was in breach
secretary of state? of his duty, he did not abide by his
own propriety guidance, nor by the
natural justice and common law
fairness and that his decision had
involved bias.
How was the Barn well case The ruling that was held in this case
relevant to the secretary of states was , that when regarding harms on
decision on this case? heritage assets the minister should
balance equally between the two
and with careful consideration and
should give preference to the harms
that is likely to be caused when
making his decision.
Do you agree with Longmores I do agree with Lord Justice
judgment? Give reasons for your Longmores ruling that the appeal
answer. should be dismissed.

The secretary of state had

considered his decision on grounds
that would be beneficial for the
surroundings of the area and also to
the heritage assets therefore there is
no reason for his decision to be
quashed nor for the courts to apply
a remedy to Broadview, he should
accept the decision taken.

I agree that the interactions should

not have occurred, but it is not
enough to be considered as bias or
the minister favoring objectors, the
principle of common law and
natural justice, para 4 of the
guidance and the statutory rules
were all not in breach thus grounds
of the appellants appeal has all
failed.

The minister had act according to

his duties and power.