When can the public be lawfully excluded from a council meeting?

In R (on the application of Stride) v Wiltshire Council [2022] EWHC 1476 (Admin), the High Court dismissed a challenge to a decision of the council in its capacity as landowner to approve a distributor road on the outskirts of Chippenham. The challenge was raised on the basis that the public was unlawfully excluded from a meeting of the executive of the council. The distributor road was a critical part of the Future Chippenham scheme, which planned to develop 7,500 new homes and other mixed development, much of it on land owned by the council. Three alternative routes of the distributor road, called the inner, middle and outer routes, were the subject of public consultation. All three routes were rejected by 75% of the consultees. However, at a meeting of the executive, the council resolved to approve a new road that substantially followed the outer route. There was no consultation, either on the proposed development of publicly owned land or the changed route adopted by the committee. The claimant challenged the decision on three grounds. First, the council had unlawfully excluded the public from part of the meeting, contrary to paragraph 9 of schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. Secondly, the council had not consulted the public on proposed development on public land owned by the council. Thirdly, the council had not consulted on the particular route that was adopted at the meeting. Regarding ground 1, this was the first time that the court had to interpret paragraph 9, which prohibits the local authority from excluding the public from a meeting that will consider sensitive financial information if that information “relates to proposed development for which the local planning authority may grant itself planning permission”. Judge Jarman QC considered that the wording of paragraph 9 allows for both wide and narrow interpretations. He considered that the purpose of the statute is to promote public access, but also to safeguard the financial and business interests of anyone, including the authority. He concluded that “in the interests of transparency, once the authority is applying for planning permission for development on its own land, then such safeguards should no longer apply and the public should have access to relevant financial and business information”. Based on that conclusion, he ruled that the meeting of the executive was held at an early stage, as there was no planning application yet, so the correct balance did not require the information to be disclosed. Regarding grounds 2 and 3, he considered that both grounds involved an issue whether the public had a legitimate expectation to be consulted. However, he found that the council had not given the “necessary clear and unambiguous promises devoid of qualification so as to give rise to the legitimate expectation relied upon by the claimant”. This case shows that the public may be excluded from a meeting of the executive of a local authority held in the early stages of a development. Stefano D’Ambrosio is a solicitor in the planning and environmental team at Irwin Mitchell