Planning permission for development of council-owned land — Local opposition to development — Local elections resulting in council opposed to development — Resolution not to sell land to developers — Whether apparent bias or predetermination — Claim dismissed
The defendant council owned a site adjoining a science park in an area allocated in the unitary development plan (UDP) for specialist high-technology use. It was designed to attract good-quality employment and required stringent environmental standards. The claimants were interested in developing the site, and, following discussions about various schemes, a plan was conceived to use the land for a sporting school of excellence to be developed in conjunction with the Welsh Rugby Union.
The defendants subsequently granted planning permission for the school, together with an athletics track of international standard, an extension to the science park, executive housing and a four-star hotel. That development was contrary to the existing and emerging UDP. Discussions ensued about a sale of the defendants’ site in order to enable the development to go ahead. No final agreement was reached, although heads of terms were approved by a council resolution.
Local elections were held in which the proposed development became an important issue owing to considerable local opposition. The elections resulted in a change in control of the council from Labour to Liberal Democrat. The new cabinet decided to put the sale on hold pending a review of the situation. Following extensive consideration of several options, the defendants resolved to retain the land for the time being.
The claimants brought judicial review proceedings to challenge the resolution. They contended that it was vitiated by, inter alia, predetermination and apparent bias, and had not been made on the merits, given the known views of the relevant council members and the Liberal Democrat attitude to the development. They also alleged various factual and analytical errors in the decision-making process.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
(1) Although councillors were obliged, when making decisions, to consider all relevant matters and to approach their task with no preconceptions, they were entitled to have regard to and apply policies in which they believed, particularly if those policies had formed part of their manifesto. Since the new council regime believed that a development in accordance with the planning permission was wrong, and had made it clear that that was their approach, they were entitled to consider whether the development could lawfully be prevented. Moreover, judges could not allow their views on the merits of a policy to colour their decisions, since to do so would be an unwarranted interference with the democratic process. It followed that, in the context of a case such as the present, bias could not exist merely because of a desire to ensure, if possible, that the development did not take place. R v Amber Valley District Council, ex parte Jackson [1985] 1 WLR 298 and R v Waltham Forest London Borough Council, ex parte Baxter [1988] QB 419 considered.
In any event, councillors had to be trusted to abide by the rules that the law laid down, namely that, whatever their views, they must approach their decision making with an open mind, in the sense of having regard to all material considerations and being prepared to change their views if persuaded that they should. Unless positive evidence could show that they had in fact closed their minds, prior observations or apparent favouring of a particular decision would not suffice to persuade a court to quash a decision: R (on the application of Louden) v Bury School Organisation Committee [2002] EWHC 2749 (Admin) applied. In the instant case, there was nothing to show apparent bias or predetermination such as to vitiate the decision: Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67; [2002] 2 AC 357 applied.
(2) In considering whether to sell the land, the defendants had been obliged to take into account the desirability, in the interests of the local inhabitants, of providing special employment and in maintaining UDP policy. The existence of planning permission and the effect on the claimants, while worthy of consideration, could not be given any weight if the conclusion had been properly reached that the interests of the defendants meant that the land should be retained for future development.
Nigel Jones QC and David Lawson (instructed by Eversheds LLP, of Cardiff) appeared for the claimants; Andrew Arden QC and Christopher Baker (instructed by the legal department of Bridgend County Borough Council) appeared for the defendants.
Sally Dobson, barrister
