An allegation of bias was based on the participation by a councillor in the meeting which adopted the council’s local plan who was a member of a committee and had been involved in a meeting of that committee which had supported the proposed adoption. This meant, it was submitted, that there had been predetermination.
Held: Ouseley J: ‘In my judgment a Council acts unlawfully where its decision-making body has predetermined the outcome of the consideration which it is obliged to give to a matter, whether by the delegation of its decision to another body, or by the adoption of an inflexible policy, or as in effect is alleged here, by the closing of its mind to the consideration and weighing of the relevant factors because of a decision already reached or because of a determination to reach a particular decision. It is seen in a corporate determination to adhere to a particular view, regardless of the relevant factors or how they could be weighed. It is to be distinguished from a legitimate predisposition towards a particular point of view. I derive those principles from the Kirkstall Valley Campaign Ltd case to which I have already referred, particularly at page 321G.
There is obviously an overlap between this requirement and the commonplace requirement to have rational regard to relevant considerations. But in my judgment, the requirement to avoid predetermination goes further. The further vice of predetermination is that the very process of democratic decision making, weighing and balancing relevant factors and taking account of any other viewpoints, which may justify a different balance, is evaded. Even if all the considerations have passed through the predetermined mind, the weighing and balancing of them will not have been undertaken in the manner required. Additionally, where a view has been predetermined, the reasons given may support that view without actually being the true reasons. The decision-making process will not then have proceeded from reasoning to decision, but in the reverse order. In those circumstances, the reasons given would not be true reasons but a sham.
In my judgment the sequence of steps and the accumulation of events here shows predetermination and a closed mind, rather than just a strong disposition to include the land within the NFHA.’
Ouseley J
[2002] EWHC 483 (Admin)
Cited by:
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.244704
