Development — Grant of planning permission — Suspicion of bias — Whether notice of planning application defective — Whether evidence of bias by chairman of planning committee — Application allowed
The claimant applied for judicial review of a decision of the defendant, made by resolution of its planning committee, to grant planning permission for a major redevelopment of a retail centre. He owned commercial premises that would be affected by the proposed development. Planning permission was granted by a narrow majority of four votes to three. The claim was opposed both by the defendant and the developer which appeared as an interested party.
The claimant contended, inter alia, that the defendant had failed to comply with the statutory requirements as to service of notice of the planning application and that newspaper advertisements relating to the planning application were defective, contrary to section 65 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and article 6 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995. The claimant contended that there appeared to be bias and pre-determination by the chairman of the planning committee, based on telephone conversations he had had with the chairman prior to the grant of permission.
Held: The application was allowed.
The claimant’s case was that a number of those who should have been notified of the planning application had not received such notices. Despite this error, the court was satisfied that none of those upon whom notices should have been served could have been unaware of the planning application or denied the opportunity to submit representations in respect of it and that no prejudice had been suffered.
The defendant had admitted that the advertisement was defective but, on the evidence, neither the claimant nor the public at large had suffered any prejudice by reason of the defect. Notice requirements were fundamental and strict, but a breach of the requirements did not remove the court’s discretion to uphold a planning permission or mean that it could only be exercised in one way, ie to deny planning permission, if the requirements were breached: R v Lambeth London Borough Council, ex parte Sharp [1987] JPL 440, CA considered.
However, there was evidence of apparent bias. From telephone conversations recorded and transcribed by the claimant, it appeared that the chairman was anxious to see the proposed development take place and was seeking to remove the potential blockage or delay that the claimant could cause. In the circumstances, there was a real possibility that the chairman was biased in the sense of approaching the decision with a closed mind and without impartial consideration of all relevant planning issues. As the permission was granted by such a narrow majority, the decision should be quashed: Georgiou v London Borough of Enfield and another [2004] EWHC 779 (Admin) applied.
The claimant appeared in person; Timothy Straker QC (instructed by Owen Willcox) appeared for the defendant; Paul Greatorex (instructed by Olswang) appeared for the interested party.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
