The claimant sought to challenge a decision of the council to grant a Listed Building consent. Members who decided the applications had also been members of the Council’s Conservation Advisory Group which had held a meeting before the Planning Committee’s meeting in which the forthcoming applications had been considered and voted on. This was said to give rise to an appearance of bias.
Held: The challenge succeeded. The court applied the Porter v Magill test of apparent bias widely: ‘ I therefore take the view that in considering the question of apparent bias in accordance with the test in Porter v Magill, it is necessary to look beyond pecuniary or personal interests and to consider in addition whether, from the point of view of the fair-minded and informed observer, there was a real possibility that the planning committee or some of its members were biased in the sense of approaching the decision with a closed mind and without impartial consideration of all relevant planning issues. That is a question to be approached with appropriate caution, since it is important not to apply the test in a way that will render local authority decision-making impossible or unduly difficult. I do not consider, however, that the circumstances of local authority decision-making are such as to exclude the broader application of the test altogether.’ and ‘ I take the view, though not without a degree of hesitation, that a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias, in the sense of the decisions being approached with closed minds and without impartial consideration of all the planning issues, as a result of the support expressed by the CAG being carried over into support for the application in the context of the planning committee’s decisions.
The fact that one of those with dual membership had received no training in planning matters reinforces that concern. So does the fact that all three of those with dual membership who had attended the CAG meeting on 27 May voted in favour of the applications.’
Judges:
Mr Justice Richards
Citations:
[2004] EWHC 779 (Admin)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Scrivens v Ethical Standards Officer Admn 11-Apr-2005
The councillor appealed an adjudication that he had failed adequately to declare an interest at a meeting of the council. The officer thought the duty to withdraw was entirely objective, the applicant that it was a matter for his honest judgment. At . .
Cited – Port Regis School Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Gillingham and Shaftesbury Agricultural Society Admn 5-Apr-2006
Complaint was made that the decision of a planning committee had been biased because of the presence on the committee of two freemasons, and where the interests of another Lodge were affected.
Held: The freemasonry interests had been declared. . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning, Local Government, Natural Justice
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195492