Ghadami v Harlow District Council & Anor

The claimant sought judicial review of the council’s decision to grant planning permission for a major redevelopment of Harlow town centre and separately challenged the council’s earlier screening opinion under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 that an environmental impact assessment (EIA) was not required. The judge considered six broad issues: the lawfulness and applicability of the EIA screening opinion (regulations 2, 4, 5, 7 and 20 of the 1999 Regulations), the adequacy of service and newspaper publicity under the GDPO (articles 6, 7 and 8), alleged apparent bias/predetermination by the Planning Committee chairman (applying the Porter v. Magill test as explained in Georgiou), the participation of a substitute member, other procedural fairness points, and the adequacy of the officers’ report.

The judge refused the claimant’s application to cross-examine council witnesses as disproportionate, rejected the substantive challenge to the screening opinion and most procedural complaints (including defects in notices and the advertisement) as either lawful, non‑prejudicial or within the council’s discretion, and upheld only one ground: apparent bias/predetermination in relation to Councillor Garnett. Because his participation was material to a 4–3 majority, the planning permission was quashed.

Background and parties. The claimant, a local commercial premises owner, challenged Harlow District Council’s resolution of 18 September 2003 granting planning permission for redevelopment focused on the Harvey Centre. Sapphire Retail Fund Limited (developer) and its agents appear as interested party. The claimant advanced multiple procedural and substantive grounds, including challenge to an EIA screening opinion, notice/publicity defects, and alleged bias by the Planning Committee chairman.

Nature of the claim and relief sought. The claimant sought judicial review of the council’s decision to grant planning permission and of the antecedent screening opinion that no EIA was required; he also sought to cross-examine key council witnesses.

Issues framed by the court. The court structured the issues into: (1) the EIA screening opinion under the 1999 Regulations; (2) notices and advertisements under the GDPO; (3) apparent bias/predetermination in relation to Councillor Garnett; (4) participation of substitute Councillor Steer; (5) other procedural matters (meetings with developer, alleged rush, council land ownership); and (6) the officers’ report and substantive planning merits.

Evidence and procedure. The claimant sought oral cross‑examination of several witnesses but the judge refused as disproportionate, unnecessary for just disposal, and likely to prolong and complicate the hearing. Documentary files were disorganised but the judge accepted the council’s and interested party’s factual material where supported by contemporaneous documents.

Court’s reasoning on key issues.

• EIA screening opinion: The court treated the opinion as relating to the development, not the applicant, and held that the council had sufficient information in hand to adopt a screening opinion. The report supporting the opinion addressed the selection criteria and concluded rationally that the project was not EIA development. The judge rejected challenges based on absence of specific documents, consultation, or publication requirements as either unfounded or not invalidating the opinion.
• Notices and advertisements: The article 7 certificate and related postal records supported service on those listed; where an omission (Woolwich PLC) was alleged, the court found affected parties were aware of the proposal and no prejudice was established. An advertising omission (failure to state the deadline) was accepted as an error but the judge exercised discretion to refuse relief because no prejudice had resulted and the public had opportunity to make representations.
• Apparent bias / predetermination (Councillor Garnett): Applying the fair‑minded and informed observer test as explained by Porter v. Magill and Georgiou, the judge found that recorded telephone conversations and associated conduct showed the chairman had acted beyond the normal constituent relationship and had attempted to broker resolution between developer and objector. The judge concluded there was a real possibility that he had a closed mind in relation to the decision and ought to have stood down; his participation vitiated the decision.
• Participation of substitute councillor: The judge found the substitute councillor’s participation complied with standing orders and was lawful because she had been validly appointed as substitute before the meeting.
• Officers’ report and substantive decision: The officers’ report was an orthodox planning report addressing material considerations and policies; omissions identified by the claimant were either immaterial or did not demonstrate prejudice.

Remedy and disposition. Permission to challenge the screening opinion was refused (keeping open delay plea), permission was granted for the rest of the claim, and on the substantive claim the court quashed the planning permission because Councillor Garnett’s participation materially tainted the decision. The other grounds of challenge were dismissed.

This was a first‑instance judicial review. The judge refused the claimant’s separate challenge to the EIA screening opinion and refused the claimant’s application to cross‑examine witnesses as unnecessary and disproportionate. On the substantive review of the planning decision, the court found only one successful ground: apparent bias/predetermination by the Chairman of the Planning Committee, Councillor Garnett. Because his participation was material to the 4–3 majority, the planning permission was quashed. Other procedural and substantive challenges were rejected as unfounded or non‑prejudicial.