CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 8 juillet 1986

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 8 July 1986, the following members being present:                      MM. J.A. FROWEIN, Acting President                        G. SPERDUTI                        E. BUSUTTIL                        G. JÖRUNDSSON                        G. TENEKIDES                        S. TRECHSEL                        B. KIERNAN                        A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                        A. WEITZEL                        J.C. SOYER                        H.G. SCHERMERS                        H. DANELIUS                        G. BATLINER                        J. CAMPINOS                        H. VANDENBERGHE                    Mrs G.H. THUNE                    Sir Basil HALL                      Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission   Having regard to Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;   Having regard to the application introduced on 19 August 1985 by W.C., F.S. and J.T. against the United Kingdom and registered on 16 December 1985 under file No. 11931/86;   Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;   Having deliberated;   Decides as follows:   THE FACTS   The applicants are British citizens, born in 1900, 1925 and 1932 respectively, and resident in Cheshire.   The first applicant is a retired member of Macclesfield Borough Council, the second applicant is a member of the Liberal Party active in local affairs and the third applicant is a member of the Macclesfield Borough Council and a member of the Area Planning Committee for Wilmslow.   On 8 November 1984, the Refuge Assurance Company lodged an application for permission to transfer its Head Office to a green belt site between Wilmslow and Alderley Edge.   The application was strongly opposed inter alia by the Greater Manchester County Council and local residents.   However by letter of 7 February 1985 the Minister of the Environment refused to intervene to call in the application for his own determination.   The application was accordingly considered and accepted by the main Planning Committee on 11 February 1986 and their decision approved by the Macclesfield Borough Council on 28 February 1985.   By the Planning Regulations of the Council all planning applications must first be submitted to the appropriate Area Sub-Committee except those of a significant character which go directly to the main Planning Committee.   This committee has wide delegated powers and their recommendations are irrevocable.   Their decisions are formally approved by the full council and discussion is not permitted.   The fifteen local councillors of Wilmslow and Alderley Edge are on the Area Sub-Committee: however only six of these sit on the main Committee which consists of 24 members.   Nine local councillors including the third applicant therefore did not take part in the discussion or voting on the application concerning the Refuge Assurance Company on 11 February 1985.   On 28 February 1985 the decisions of the main Planning Committee were brought before the full council for approval.   An attempt was made to exclude the refuge application from the usual en bloc formal approval by the local councillors for the area but this was heavily defeated.   COMPLAINTS   The applicants complain that nine of the local councillors including the third applicant elected by the Wilmslow and Alderley Edge residents were unable to vote on a major planning decision concerning their own area, and that the local residents were thereby disenfranchised as a result of the operation of the planning regulations.   They also complain that the local representatives including the third applicant were prevented effectively from speaking to oppose the application, since no discussion or vote on the merits was allowed in full council.   The applicants invoke Articles 10 (art. 10) of the Convention and 3 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-3).   THE LAW   1.       The applicants complain that nine of their local representatives, including the third applicant, were unable to vote on a matter significant to their area as a result of the rules governing delegation of planning applications.   Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-3) states that:   "The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature."   This Article (P1-3) protects the right of the people by means of free elections to choose the "legislature".   However, in this case, even assuming the delegation of planning powers can be said to disenfranchise the applicants, the Commission finds that Macclesfield Borough Council cannot be said to be a legislature within the meaning of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-3).   The Commission notes that the council does not possess any inherent rule-making power and such powers exercised by it are exercised subject to the control of the Parliament of the United Kingdom (see also Application Nos. 5155/71, 11377/85 and 11391/85 to be published in D.R.).   Accordingly, the Commission rejects this part of the complaint as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.       The applicants also complain that nine of their local representatives, including the third applicant, were prevented from speaking in the debate on the application in the planning committee or in debating the matter in full council.   Article 10 (art. 10) states that:   "1.      Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority regardless of frontiers. This Article (art. 10) shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises."   The Commission notes that the first and second applicants were not members of the council and therefore under the rules of the council, were unable to participate themselves in any debate. However, Article 10 (art. 10) cannot be construed so as to give them a right either to take part in the debate themselves or to secure that a particular number of their representatives should be able to speak for them in such debate. The Commission recalls that six of their local councillors were in fact able to participate in the main Planning Committee's deliberations.   The third applicant is himself a member of the council but under the rules governing procedure cannot attend the main planning committee or debate the delegated planning matters in full council. The Commission finds however that Article 10 (art. 10) cannot be said to confer on every local councillor a right to speak on each committee and that the exercise of the council's discretion to delegate planning applications subject to the above rules does not disclose a violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention.   An examination of this complaint as it has been submitted therefore does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention.   It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (art. 27-2) of the Convention.   For these reasons, the Commission   DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE   Secretary to the Commission       Acting President of the Commission         (H.C. KRÜGER)                               (J.A. FROWEIN)