Persimmon Homes Ltd & Anor, R (on the application of) v Vale of Glamorgan Council

Officers may evaluate planning options against national policy and planning considerations, provided their minds remain open and the elected decision-maker retains genuine judgment. An officers’ report need not be exhaustive, but it must fairly identify the principal issues and key information.

Planning merits remain for the planning authority, subject to ordinary judicial review limits. Apparent bias and predetermination are distinct. The consultation scheme does not require perpetual re-consultation merely because representations generate a further option.

The claimants sought judicial review of the Vale of Glamorgan Council’s endorsement of a Draft Preferred Strategy and Initial Sustainability Appraisal for its Local Development Plan. The strategy did not include the claimants’ proposed new settlement at Llandow Newydd.

They alleged that the officers’ report was misleading, that officers had predetermined the preferred option, that apparent bias arose from an officer’s marriage to a Persimmon employee, and that consultation on a later site-specific option was inadequate. The Council reconsidered the matter and endorsed the strategy afresh on 3 February 2010.

1. Application dismissed. The later decision rendered the challenge to the earlier decision moot and cured the principal complaints. The later report addressed the central omission, and the officer whose conduct was challenged took no part in its preparation.
2. An officers’ report must be fair overall and provide sufficient information and guidance for members to apply the relevant statutory criteria. It need not repeat every detail or be exhaustive. Material omissions may be corrected by information supplied before the decision (Oxton Farms v Selby DC; [2001] EWCA Civ 781; R (Georgiou) v Enfield LBC; [2004] EWHC 779 (Admin)).
3. The sustainability-appraisal duty lay on the Council. Neither the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 nor the 2005 Regulations required an independent appraisal or acceptance of consultants’ conclusions. The differences between the consultants’ and officers’ assessments concerned planning judgment, which was for the authority and later independent examination, subject to irrationality and other ordinary judicial review grounds.
4. Predetermination involves a closed mind. Apparent bias concerns whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. Officers were entitled, and in part required, to consider national policy. A policy preference against new settlements did not itself establish predetermination.
5. A spouse’s involvement did not create automatic disqualification absent pecuniary interest. Breaches of internal declaration rules did not taint the decision absent disqualifying bias. The evidence also did not establish that any officer’s views had imposed themselves on the Cabinet.
6. The consultation provisions did not require re-consultation whenever representations produced a further option. The earlier alternatives and their implications had been made explicit, and the revised appraisal would be subject to consultation at the deposit stage.