One group on the council decided to support a proposed planning application. It was then asked whether that prevented a member of the group sitting on the committee which would assess it. There was an affidavit from the leader of the majority group in which he stated that all material considerations would be taken into account when the planning committee came to deal with the application.
Held: Members of the group could not be so disqualified.
Woolf J: ‘I fully accept, particularly having regard to the authorities to which I have referred, that there is an obligation on the district council to deal fairly with the applications by KLF for planning permission and that in that sense the principles of natural justice apply to the consideration of an application for planning permission. Furthermore, I agree that this court has the right to intervene to prevent an application being dealt with in an unfair manner or contrary to the principles of natural justice by the district council. However, I cannot accept that Webster J’s test can be applied in this situation [That was a reference to Steeples v Derbyshire County Council [1984] 3 All ER 468]. It is much easier for the court to interfere on the basis of procedural unfairness than on the basis of bias of the sort alleged in this case. It is to be noted that it is not alleged here that the district council had entered into any contract which precluded them from exercising an independent judgment as was alleged against the Derbyshire County Council. Nor is it alleged that any individual district councillor has some personal financial interest. My conclusion as to what the evidence shows in this case is that it indicates that the majority of the district council can only be said to be ‘biased’ in the sense that they are, as the respondents’ counsel contends, ‘politically predisposed’ in favour of the development in respect of which planning permission is sought. It has become the Labour group’s policy to support the development. It is therefore likely that any Labour member of the planning committee will be more ready to grant planning permission than he would be if the Labour group had remained adverse to the development. But does this have the fact of disqualifying the Labour majority from considering the planning application? It would be a surprising result if it did [disqualify] since in the case of a development of this sort, I would have thought that it was almost inevitable, now that party politics play so large a part in local government, that the majority group on a council would decide on the party line in support of the proposal. If this was to be regarded as disqualifying the district council from dealing with the planning application, then if that disqualification is to be avoided, the members of the planning committee at any rate will have to adopt standards of conduct which I suspect will be almost impossible to achieve in practice.’
CS Woolf J: ‘The rules of fairness of natural justice cannot be regarded as being rigid. They must alter in accordance with the context. Thus in the case of highways, the department can be both the promoting authority and the determining authority. When this happens, of course any reasonable man would regard the department as being predisposed towards the outcome of the inquiry. The department is under an obligation to be fair and to carefully consider the evidence given before the inquiry but the fact that it has a policy in the matter does not entitle a court to intervene. So in this case I do not consider the fact that there is a declaration of policy by the majority group can disqualify a district council from adjudicating on a planning application. It may mean that the outcome of the planning application is likely to be favourable to an applicant and therefore unfavourable to objectors. However, Parliament has seen fit to lay down that it is the local authority which have the power to make the decision and an applicant for planning permission in the normal way are entitled to have a decision from the local authority if the Secretary of State decides not to intervene. The legislation could have given a right of appeal to the objectors in the same way as it is given to applicants but this it has not done and they are dependent on the limited powers of this court to intervene by way of judicial review. ‘
Woolf J: ‘I do not say that the court can never intervene. Indeed I do not question Webster J’s decision to do so in respect of the conduct of the county council. However in this case, while the Labour majority undoubtedly had a policy, there is no evidence before me on which it would be right to hold that they would not (despite the policy) consider the objections to the planning application on their merits. I would make it absolutely clear that they are under a duty to do so. However, in this case I have an affidavit from the leader of the majority Labour group on the district council that when the planning committee come to consider the application all material considerations will be taken into account. He furthermore indicates that the decision will be taken in light of the report prepared by the council’s officers. That report is in evidence before me; it is a detailed and balanced report which has not been criticised by the applicants. In these circumstances, it seems to me that it would be quite wrong of me to infer that the planning committee would not do precisely what Mr Cook deposes that he believes that they will do, namely take into account all material considerations.’
Woolf J
[1984] 3 All ER 501, [1985] 1 WLR 2998
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Steeples v Derbyshire County Council 1984
The Council owned park land which they wanted to develop as a leisure centre with recreational facilities. They agreed with a company who was to manage the development that they would undertake to use their best endeavours to obtain outline planning . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Waltham Forest London Borough Council, Ex parte Baxter CA 1988
Challenge was made to the way the Council set its rate. Prior to the decision, the majority group held a private meeting at which a decision was reached following a vote on the appropriate increase. It was then the duty of the members to vote in . .
Cited – Island Farm Development Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Bridgend County Borough Council Admn 25-Aug-2006
The claimant applied for a review of a decision by the respondent council not to sell it land.
Held: The challenge failed. The councillors had acted in accordance with advice given to them by officers, and ‘the committee was concerned only to . .
Cited – Partingdale Lane Residents’ Association, Regina (on the Application of) v Barnet London Borough Council Admn 2-Apr-2003
Complaint was made that a Councillor had closed his mind to any arguments and had predetermined the decision on a proposed road re-opening order.
Held: The application was allowed. Councillor Coleman had himself gone beyond a legitimate . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Local Government
Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.244703