ABSTRACT
The requirement that decisions affecting civil rights be taken by an independent tribunal has potentially significant implications for UK planning and environmental law where administrative bodies and ministers are often charged with taking decisions potentially affecting rights. In Bryan v UK (1996) 21 EHRR 342 the Court held that UK procedures by which individuals can challenge planning decisions accord with Art 6(1) when taken as a whole. However, while the totality of the procedures were held compatible with Art 6, particular stages, and in particular proceedings before planning inspectors, were said to lack a sufficient degree of independence from government (see also Benthem v Netherlands (1985) EHRR l; Fredin v Sweden (1990) 13 EHRR 784). More recently, the Divisional Court’s decision in R (On the Application of Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (13 December 2000) raised a question mark over whether the Minister’s role in planning appeals and related procedures is, in view of his policy role, compatible with Art 6. The House of Lords has now overturned this decision, holding that the Minister’s role in these procedures is not incompatible with Art 6 ([2001] 2 All ER 929).
