header-logo header-logo

Discretion is not endorsement

23 March 2018 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7786 / Categories: Features , Local government , Public
printer mail-detail

Nicholas Dobson explains why public authority officials exercising discretion must do more than simply endorse recommendations

  • A planning decision made by a local authority chief executive was unlawful because: (i) it failed to have regard to material considerations and; (ii) requisite decision reasons were not provided.

Anyone taking a decision on behalf of a public authority needs to do so with care. For this is not simply a matter of personal whim or whether the decision feels okay. Those exercising statutory discretion must do so strictly within the ambit of that discretion, having regard only to material considerations and disregarding those which are irrelevant.

Which is where Maldon Council’s chief executive and her authority came unstuck. For she had made a decision to approve matters previously reserved in outline planning consent simply by endorsing the recommendation in the report before her for reasons not explained in that report and subject to conditions within the original committee report and subsequent update which she apparently did not have. The case in question was R (Pearl)

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll