Georgiou v London Borough of Enfield & Ors

Apparent bias in local-authority planning decisions is assessed by asking whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. The inquiry extends beyond pecuniary or personal interests to whether councillors approached the decision with closed minds and without impartial consideration of all material planning issues. The test must be applied cautiously so that local-authority decision-making is not rendered impracticable.

An officers’ report must give the decision-making committee sufficient information to discharge its statutory function. It need not contain every detail, but it must not materially mislead members about material considerations, consultation responses or policy compliance. Where significant concerns are omitted, the court may quash the decision, particularly where the result was finely balanced.

The claimant challenged decisions by the London Borough of Enfield to grant listed building consent and planning permission for the conversion of Truro House and the construction of a mental health nursing home. The challenge concerned apparent bias arising from overlapping membership of the council’s Conservation Advisory Group and planning committee, the omission of highways concerns from the officers’ report, inadequate information about health-care need and service impact, and deficiencies in the summary of consultation responses.

The planning committee had approved the applications by eight votes to seven. The court therefore considered whether the decision-making process was legally flawed by apparent bias or by failure to provide members with adequate information about material considerations.

1. Apparent bias. The decisions were vitiated by apparent bias. The governing question was whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the planning committee or relevant members were biased. The inquiry included whether members approached the planning decision with closed minds and without impartial consideration of all relevant planning issues.
2. The Conservation Advisory Group had expressed unqualified support for the applications. Three members who attended that meeting later voted for the applications as members of the planning committee. Nothing indicated that they had expressly put aside the earlier support or appreciated openly the need to approach the wider planning decision with an impartial mind. The absence of a formal vote in the Advisory Group did not remove the concern. Members’ own statements that they had approached the matter with open minds carried little weight because the question was objective.
3. Adequacy of information. The officers’ report materially failed to inform members of continuing highways and access concerns. Some points, including concerns about gradients, were not shown to require further consideration. Other matters involved planning judgment, including access, ramp design, passing places and refuse collection. It was for the committee, rather than the court or officers alone, to decide whether those concerns were met by conditions or outweighed by other considerations.
4. The report was also materially deficient on health-care need and service impact. The continued objections of Social Services and the Primary Care Trust were not made clear, leaving members with the possible impression that those objections had been resolved by the applicant’s further information.
5. The failure to provide new committee members with the note of the planning panel meeting was a material failure. The deficiencies relating to highways, need and consultation responses were substantial individually and cumulatively. The narrow vote meant that the court could not conclude that the result would inevitably have been the same.
6. The decisions and the subsequent formal grants of listed building consent and planning permission were quashed. Permission to appeal was refused.