Council for National Parks Ltd v The Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority

Under section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, a planning authority must interpret the relevant development plan, decide whether the proposal accords with it, identify material considerations and determine whether those considerations justify departing from the plan. No universal decision-making sequence is required. A consideration considered insufficient under a policy may nevertheless remain a material consideration when deciding whether, in all the circumstances, to depart from that policy. In local-authority planning decisions, a councillor’s predisposition does not establish apparent bias. The question is whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility that the councillor approached the decision with a closed mind.

The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant National Park Authority’s grant of outline planning permission for the Bluestone holiday village development. The development was a major proposal within the National Park and conflicted with policy GE4 of the Authority’s local plan, including its requirement for an overriding national need.

The challenge alleged, first, failure to comply with section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Secondly, it alleged apparent bias because two Authority members were also County Councillors who had supported a loan connected with the wider project and had supported planning permission for related development outside the Park.

1. Section 54A process. The Authority had to interpret the development plan, assess whether the proposal accorded with it, identify relevant material considerations and decide whether those considerations had sufficient weight to justify departing from the plan. The court adopted the practical approach described in City of Edinburgh Council v Secretary of State for Scotland [1997] 1 W.L.R. 1447. No universal two-stage procedure was required. A decision would be unlawful only if the Authority positively failed to follow a relevant lawful process.
2. The development conflicted with policy GE4 because it could not be said to contribute to an overriding national need. Nevertheless, the local economic benefits, particularly employment, remained a material consideration. Section 54A did not prevent a consideration rejected as insufficient under the policy from being considered again in deciding whether, in all the circumstances, the plan should be followed. The Authority had considered the plan, the policy conflict, alternative sites, environmental effects and economic benefits. It was entitled to conclude that the economic benefits outweighed the contrary planning considerations.
3. Apparent bias. The applicable test was whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. The distinction between a closed mind and a legitimate predisposition was accepted. Membership of another public body, prior support for a related decision, or a leading role in debate did not automatically disqualify a councillor.
4. The two councillors had considered the planning merits, understood that different policies applied inside and outside the National Park, and had not simply applied the County Council’s earlier decisions. Their conduct did not demonstrate a closed mind. The cumulative circumstances therefore did not establish apparent bias.
5. The claim for judicial review was dismissed. The Authority’s decision complied with section 54A and the allegation of apparent bias failed.

This was a first-instance judicial review claim. The judgment does not state any subsequent appellate history.