R (on the application of The Spitalfields Historic Building Trust) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2025] UKSC 11

The Spitalfields Historic Building Trust challenged a planning permission granted for the Old Truman Brewery development, arguing the Council's standing orders unlawfully restricted councillors from voting. The Supreme Court held that local authorities have power under paragraph 42 of Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act 1972 to make standing orders regulating voting entitlements at committee meetings.

Facts

A developer applied for planning permission to develop the Old Truman Brewery in Tower Hamlets. The Council’s Development Committee considered the application at a meeting on 27 April 2021, attended by five members, where representations were heard and the matter was deferred. At the reconvened meeting on 14 September 2021, only three councillors who had attended the first meeting were present, and by a vote of two to one, planning permission was granted.

The Council’s standing orders contained a restrictive voting rule providing that where an application is deferred, only members present at the previous meeting may vote at the subsequent meeting. The appellant Trust argued this rule was unlawful and that other committee members would have attended and might have voted differently but for the rule.

Issues

Principal Issue

Whether the restrictive voting rule contained in the Council’s standing orders was within the scope of the power conferred by paragraph 42 of Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act 1972 and section 106 of that Act to make standing orders for the regulation of proceedings and business.

Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. Lord Sales, delivering the lead judgment, held that the power in paragraph 42 of Schedule 12 to make standing orders ‘for the regulation of their proceedings and business’ should be given its ordinary and natural meaning. This includes power to regulate the circumstances in which a member will be entitled to vote.

The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that councillors have a fundamental right to vote which can only be restricted by primary legislation. Lord Sales explained that a councillor’s entitlement to vote is implicit in the LGA 1972 rather than created by it, and is always subject to general background rules regarding bias, predetermination, and personal interests.

The Court noted that the relevant standing orders served legitimate purposes: protecting the integrity of the decision-making process, upholding the importance of listening to representations, and promoting public confidence in the planning process. The standing orders were conceded to be rational and made for a proper purpose.

Committee Reconstitution and Sub-delegation Arguments

The Court agreed with the first instance judge that the alternative arguments advanced by the second respondent were ‘completely divorced from reality’ and dismissed them.

Implications

This judgment confirms that local authorities have broad powers under the LGA 1972 to regulate their own proceedings through standing orders, including rules governing voting entitlements. However, such powers are subject to public law constraints and must be exercised rationally and for proper purposes. Where standing orders affect a councillor’s ability to vote, heightened scrutiny applies given the importance of local democratic representation, but appropriate measures directed at ensuring lawful and legitimate decision-making will be upheld.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed. The Council's standing orders containing the restrictive voting rule were lawfully made under paragraph 42 of Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act 1972 and section 106 of that Act.

Source: The Spitalfields Historic Building Trust, R. (on the application of) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2025] UKSC 11 (26 March 2025)