Supreme Court to hear appeal in challenge concerning standing orders and committee voting
The Supreme Court has granted permission for an appeal against the Court of Appeal's dismissal of a challenge concerning the lawfulness of Tower Hamlets Council's standing orders requiring councillors to be present for the whole of a committee's consideration of an item to vote on it.
At the Court of Appeal in The Spitalfields Historic Building Trust, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough Of Tower Hamlets [2023] EWCA Civ 917, the claimants advanced a single ground of appeal, which stated that the High Court judge "was wrong to find that the Council was empowered to make standing orders under the Local Government Act 1972, Schedule 12, [paragraphs] 42 and 44 removing the right of committee members to vote."
The specific development committee procedure rules in contention require that:
- "In order to [be] able to vote upon an item, a Councillor must be present throughout the whole of the Committee's consideration including the officer introduction to the matter."; and
- "Where an application is deferred and its consideration recommences at a subsequent meeting only Members who were present at the previous meeting will be able to vote. If this renders the Committee inquorate then the item will have to be considered afresh. This would include public speaking rights being triggered again."
Writing in Local Government Lawyer, Philip McCourt, Legal Director at Bevan Brittan, said the Court of Appeal case "confirms (as did all parties) that the reasoning for restricting the ability of councillors to vote was not irrational and was perfectly reasonable in Wednesbury terms".
He added: "What was at issue was whether it was lawful at all to place such a restriction on a councillor's ability to vote in a meeting using the provisions of Sched. 12 of the 1972 Act.
"The answer being that the concept of 'proceedings and business' in paragraph 42 of Schedule 12 to the 1972 Act is 'wide enough to cover the standing orders with which we are concerned in this case' and 'the phrase' proceedings and business' encapsulates both the activities of deliberation and voting which the committee conducts, and the procedure by which the conduct of those activities is regulated.'"
The Supreme Court has now granted permission to hear an appeal of the Court of Appeal's decision. It is not yet known when the case will be heard.
Adam Carey
