REVIEWS
| Published date | 01 September 1983 |
| Author | Friedl Weiss,Martin Loughlin,J. E. Hall Williams,Frederick Rosen,Maureen Cain |
| Date | 01 September 1983 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1983.tb02544.x |
REVIEWS
BEYOND COMPLACENCY
ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW
(Fifth edition).
By
H.
W.
R.
WADE.
[Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
1982.
li
and
892
pp.
(incl.
index). Hardback
E25.00;
palperback
E17.50.1
IT
is easy to see why Wade’s
AdminisfrativeLaw
is the leading student textbook
in the field. The book is comprehensive and balanced; it is stylish and erudite,
and
as
Wade states in the Preface, it
“
aims
to
display the law as
a
clear and
methodical structure.” This is an alluring package. Given these undoubted
qualities
I
wish to focus in this review
on
two issues: whether the high
standards established by Professor Wade have been maintained in this new
edition, and, on
a
more reflective note, on the factors which have resulted in
the pre-eminence of this book in the field
Generally speaking, Professor Wade: has succeeded quite well in inte-
grating the legislative and judicial developments
in
administrative law over the
past five years. The period since
1977
has been marked by
a
great deal
of
activity in this sphere, particularly in recent years, and the major develop-
ments have been duly recorded and (occasionally) analysed. His success,
however, is not without qualification. First, some new developments have not
been dealt with. Thus, priority neighbourhoods (pp.
185-186)
no longer
exist
*
and neither does the office development permit system (p.
174).’
Action areas
(p.
166)
are no longer to be indicated in structure plans.3 The
Ministry
of
Transport (p.
864)
is
now
a
Department and
is
no longer part
of
the Department
of
Environment. One would have expected in the discussion
of select committees
(pp.
153-154)
some mention
of
the fact thal the Select
Committee on Mationalised Industries
no
longer exists.
Secondly, Professor Wade has missed the opportunity to correct several
errors in the plrevious edition. The London Transport Board (p.
140)
was
abolished by the Transport (London) ,4ct
1969
and replaced by the London
Transport Executive. It is inaccurate to state that
a
local plan must
“
be in
general conformity with the structure plan, but the local authority itself
is
the
judge
of
this
”
(p.
167).
This is true
if
the county council is responsible for the
local plan, subject
to
the power
of
the Secretary of State to call in the plan.
But in the vast majority
of
cases where the local plan is prepared by the
district council
a
certificate
of
general conformity must be obtained from the
county ~ouncil.~ It is incorrect
to
say that
“
a local authority cannot give
planning permission to itself: it must apply to the Secretary of State, who
is
then also the proper authority for taking any other steps for the purpose
of
planning control
”
(p.
171).
This mistake arises because Professor Wade has
ignored the fact that section
270
of the
1971
Act gives the Secretary
of
State
the power to make regulations. Under these regulations, when local auth-
orities wish to develop land in their areas, provided they comply with the
formal procedures (in most cases without even having
to
notify the Secretary
s.
109
of
the
Housing
Act 1980.
S.I.
1979
No.
908.
Para.
2
(b)
of
Sched.
14
to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.
4
s.
14
(5)
of
the Town and Country Planning
Act
1971.
666
To continue reading
Request your trial