header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
23 March 2018 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7786 / Categories: Features , Local government , Public
printer mail-detail

Discretion is not endorsement

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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) v

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll