CASE BRIEF: Franklin v Minister of town and country planning [1948] ac 87 416 

Citation:
24 July 1947
 
Bench:
Lord Thankerton
 
Introduction:
The present case of Franklin v. Minister of Town and Country Planning deals with the
validity of Stevenage New Town (Designation) Order, 1946 by Respondent under New Town
Act, 1946. The petition filed in the present case was a revision petition under Section 16 of
the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, which provides by subsection 1(b) that the court,
if satisfied that any order or provision is not subject to the Act or Regulations or that the
interest of the application has been seriously prejudiced, may quash the order or regulation.

Facts:
1. In 1945, the Minister (Respondent) appointed a committee named the "Reith
Committee." On 17 April 1946, Respondent introduced the New Town bill in the
House of Commons, which was ordered to be printed. 
2. Respondent inquired in letters to 179 owners of land in Stevenage about their
willingness to sell the land to Respondent on 24 April 1946. There is no evidence that
Respondent acquired any property as a result of correspondence. Therefore, they are
entitled to assume that Minister acted on RC's suggestion and that the proposal was
withdrawn by the passage of the New Town Act.
3. On 6 May, Respondent attended and spoke at a Public-meeting at Stevenage Town
Hall, called to consider a proposal for a New Town. Appellant bases their case mainly
on the statement made in the press notice and during his speech. All the passages in
the press notice are included in the Respondent's speech, with one addition - That the
New Town has received unanimous approval. 
4. The statutory duty of carrying out the designation of New Town became imposed on
Mr. Morris. He made a report to Respondent on October 25. Appellants concede that
none of the facts stated had deterred anyone from filing objections, and Mr. Morris'
handling of the inquiry has generally received favorable reviews except as it pertains
to the scope of the examination, which the Appellants claim was not adequate by law.
5. The Respondent sent the objectors a letter on November 8th, 1946, in which he stated
that he had considered Mr. Morris's report. 
6. Appellant sought to maintain that in the 13th paragraph. Respondent had not
effectively dealt with objections raised by the concerned authority concerning water
supply and sewage disposal.
7. Henn Collins J. upheld this first contention that the Minister's functions in considering
the report of Mr. Morris's inquiry were quasi-judicial, that he did not consider the
objections with an open mind. However, after considering all the relevant facts, it was
evident that the Judge understood, as the Court of Appeal pointed out, that no witness
had indicated that the scheme would not succeed. Court of Appeal accepted this view
of reasoning of Judge and set aside the decision of Henn Collins and restored the
order of the New Town Project.

Issue and Fact of law:

In the present case, the appellant argued:
An incorrect view of law is applicable in the case. The only question that arises is whether the
Respondent has complied with the statutory directions to appoint a reporter and consider the
reporter's report in the discharge of these statutory duties. On this contention of the
appellants, no suggestion is raised that the public inquiry was improperly conducted, nor is
there any criticism of the report by Mr. Morris. In such a scenario, the only ground of
challenge must be that the Respondent did not consider the findings and the objections.
Coming now to the inference of the learned Judge from the Respondent's speech on 6th May
that he had not then a mind open to conviction, It seems probable that the learned Judge's
mind was influenced by his having already held that the Respondent's function was quasi-
judicial, which would raise the question of bias.
These passages in a speech, which was political, and of the kind familiar in a speech on
second reading, demonstrate the speaker's view that the bill would become law and the
speaker's reaction to the hostile interruption of a section of the audience. 
Furthermore, the Appellants contend that the inquiry conducted by Mr. Morris did not
conform to the statutory requirements for a local public examination, since no evidence in
support of the draft order was presented by the Respondent.

Judgement:
 In the opinion of the Court, it was not the duty of the Minister to call evidence before the
inquiry, but the responsibility of the objectors to state their objections and call such evidence
as instructed. While I find no reason to doubt the correctness of that decision, which was
admittedly contrary to the present Appellants' contention, the words "in respect" and "thereto"
here referred to, definitely limit the scope of the inquiry, and none of the general procedural
provisions of section 290 of the Local Government Act, 1933, can be held to extend its reach.
The purpose of the inquiry is to inform the Minister and not to consider an issue between the
Minister and the objectors; that will be reviewed and decided by the Minister accordingly.
Accordingly, this contention of the Appellants also fails.
In my opinion, the appeal should be dismissed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal
should be affirmed. Appellants must pay the Respondent's appeal costs.