The right to lobby councillors

A 2020 High Court judgment, R (Holborn Studios) v London Borough of Hackney, established for the first time, whether members of the public can write to councillors, and whether councillors can read those letters in advance of taking decisions.

The case concerned the practise of the London Borough of Hackney, which prohibited planning committee members from reading correspondence sent to them by the public about forthcoming applications:

“Planning members are advised to resist being lobbied by either applicant or objectors.”

This is despite the Local Government Association’s publication ‘Probity in Planning’, saying that "Lobbying is a normal part of the planning process".

The court ruled that councillors have a right to be lobbied by the public, deeming the previous Hackney Council practices "fundamentally undemocratic" and "unlawful".

One applicant for planning permission wrote to the planning officers, copying in the committee members, explaining why the officer recommendation to refuse their application should be rejected. They also said that Hackney’s approach of not allowing committee members to read representations sent to them was unlawful. A councillor replied that he had been given legal advice that he "should forward any lobbying letters to Governance Services and refrain from reading them". Consequently, he said, "I have not read your email". In an addendum report, the officers responded to the applicant’s letter:

“Members are warned about viewing lobbying material as this can be considered to be prejudicial to their consideration of the application.”

This reflected the council’s leaflet ‘How to have your say at the Planning Sub-Committee’, sent to the public in advance of the meeting:

"It is advised that you don’t contact any of the councillors before a meeting.”

The particular issue was whether the public could write to councillors about decisions they would be making and whether those councillors could consider those representations. The point was remarkably free of any judicial authority, apart from a passing comment in R(Legard) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2018] that:

"As democratically elected representatives they are expected to receive and consider representations and lobbying from those interested in the issues they are determining".

Freedom of Expression

The applicant relied on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the common law. Article 10 provides:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information … subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society".

The common law rights were stated in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Simms [2000]:

“The starting point is the right of freedom of expression. In a democracy it is the primary right: without it an effective rule of law is not possible. In the field of freedom of speech there is no difference between English law and Article 10 of the Convention.”

It was concluded that the principles of freedom of expression and the application of Article 10 were engaged in the communication between members of a local authority, and in particular members of a planning committee, and members of the public who they represented and on whose behalf they were making decisions in the public interest:

“Bearing in mind the importance of the decisions which the members of the planning committee make, and the fact that they are acting in the context of a democratically representative role, the need for the communication of views and opinions between councillors and the public whom they represent must be afforded significant weight. It would be extremely difficult to justify as proportionate the discouragement, prohibition or prevention of communication between public and the councillors representing them which was otherwise in accordance with the law.”

The court therefore concluded:

“Receiving communications from objectors to an application for planning permission is an important feature of freedom of expression in connection with democratic decision-taking and in undertaking this aspect of local authority business.”

The prevention of members from reading such communications is not proportionate and serves no proper purpose in the decision-taking process. Any concern that members might receive misleading or illegitimate material can be resolved by passing that correspondence to officers, so that any such problems are rectified.

Access to all relevant information

There is an additional issue of fairness which arises if members of the planning committee are prevented from reading lobbying material from objectors and required to pass that information unread to officers. This would leave members in the position that they would be reliant only on material from the applicant placed on the record as part of the application, or the information and opinions summarised and edited in the committee report.

It is an important feature of a planning application for an objector to be able to present their objection and the points they wish to make in the manner which they believe will make them most cogent and persuasive. Of course, it is a matter for each individual councillor to choose what evidence and opinion they wish to study in discharging their responsibilities, but the issue here was having access to all the material bearing upon the application in order to make that choice.

The standard correspondence, which advised against members of the public writing directly to members of the committee, was found to have impeded the freedom of expression of members of the public who were entitled to write to members of the planning committee.

Lobbying guidelines

In August 2026, the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) - the Council of Europe's anti-corruption body – called for the UK to introduce greater transparency in lobbying, by disclosing contacts of officials involved in decision-making with persons carrying out lobbying activities, and adopting guidelines for elected and public officials to improve transparency, avoid conflicts of interest and protect impartial and fair decision-making.

The Greater London Authority is probably the only local authority in England that has lobbying guidelines that should be followed by members and officers at all times. The GLA’s aim in developing the guidelines was to accommodate possible discrepancies between the resources and experience of those who seek to lobby the authority, and to enable all to lobby on an equal basis. The guidelines contain some do’s and don’ts applicable to members and staff, including a prohibition to give any preferential treatment to professional lobbyists and to refuse any remuneration or any gift or hospitality offered by paid lobbyists. There is also a declaration duty of any gift, hospitality or benefit received in the context of lobbying. However, there is no requirement for elected members or officers to disclose their meetings with lobbyists and other third parties, their identities or the topics discussed.

Conclusion

The Hackney judgment established, surprisingly for the first time, the right of local councillors to receive correspondence from the public and to consider it when making decisions. Part of that is the right of the public to write.

There is also a recognition that members can and will be lobbied, whether in writing, in meetings, at social events or chatting in the street. Provided that is done openly, in particular that correspondence is copied to officers whether by the writer or the recipient, then it is not just legitimate, but it is an important part of the democratic process.

Councils would do well to follow the example of the GLA and the recommendations of GRECO by developing guidelines to regulate lobbying to ensure transparency of interactions between persons carrying out lobbying activities and officials involved in decision-making.

Geoff Wild is a Legal and Governance Consultant. This is the latest in a series of articles he has written – previous contributions include: