Cases - Bolton MBC v Secretary of State for the Environment and Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority

Record details

Name

Bolton MBC v Secretary of State for the Environment and Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority

Date

(1991)

Citation

61 P&CR 343 CD

Keywords

Planning control

Summary

This case concerned a CPO to acquire a site for waste disposal. The Court of Appeal laid down a number of principles to be followed in cases where a challenge is made to a CPO.

Matters ought to be taken into account that might have caused the decision-maker to reach a different conclusion to that which he did reach by not taking them into account. If, on the other hand, something has not been taken into account that would have made no difference to the decision, then it does not matter that it was not taken into account.

A distinction is drawn between matters that are required to be taken into account by statute, and those obligations that it is necessary to take into account arising from the specific case.

The court will decide whether a matter is relevant if it falls to be decided from the case in question.

The court should only quash a decision if it considers that the matter that was left out of account was fundamental to the decision. Even in those circumstances, the court has discretion as to whether or not to quash the decision.

'The decision maker ought to take into account a matter which might cause him to reach a different conclusion to that which he would reach if he did not take it into account. Such a matter is relevant to his decision making process. By the verb "might", I mean where there is a real possibility that he would reach a different conclusion if he did take that consideration into account.'

'... If the validity of the decision is challenged on the ground that the decision maker failed to take into account [a non-statutory consideration] it is for the judge to decide whether it was a matter which the decision maker should have taken into account.' (Lord Justice Glidewell)