Guardians of Whitewebbs Park CIC v London Borough of Enfield

Under the Local Government Act 1972, a local authority must disclose documents meeting the statutory definition of background papers, including material reports recording an unresolved expert disagreement. It cannot rely on favourable parts of an expert’s work while withholding inconvenient parts. Non-compliance does not automatically invalidate a decision: substantial compliance and material prejudice must be assessed. Where undisclosed material could have affected a contested planning judgment, and the outcome cannot be treated as highly likely to have been unchanged, relief should not be refused under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. An officers’ report is materially misleading if it presents apparent expert consensus while omitting a significant contrary view. Apparent bias requires more than predisposition or ordinary institutional relationships.

The claimant, a community interest company, sought judicial review of the local planning authority’s grant of planning permission to Tottenham Hotspur Football Company Limited for a football training centre and associated works at the former Whitewebbs Park Golf Course.

The authority withdrew its defence shortly before the hearing, but the interested party contested the claim. The live grounds concerned undisclosed background papers and misleading treatment of biodiversity net gain evidence, the interpretation of local policies on special character and heritage assets, Green Belt openness, and apparent bias or predetermination. The central issues were whether the authority had concealed material expert disagreement, whether that caused material prejudice, and whether the planning committee had lawfully exercised its discretion.

Disposition. Grounds 1(a) and 1(b) succeeded. The planning permission was quashed. Grounds 2, 3 and 4 failed. Permission was granted on ground 5, but that ground was dismissed. Relief was not refused under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

1. For section 100D of the Local Government Act 1972, a background paper is a document relating to the subject matter of the report which discloses facts or matters on which an important part of the report was based and on which the proper officer relied materially. The proper officer’s assessment must be rational. The ecological report of Mr Sutton recorded a material disagreement about biodiversity net gain and was used to present him as having no ecological objection. It was therefore a background paper. The later Plumb report was also a background paper, but its substance was substantially conveyed in the officers’ report.

2. The failure to list Mr Sutton’s report was serious because its views were misrepresented or omitted. The claimant suffered material prejudice by being deprived of the opportunity to obtain specialist evidence before the committee. The court applied the approach reflected in Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust v. Malvern Hills DC [2023] EWHC 1995 (Admin). In applying section 31(2A), the court could not enter the forbidden territory of deciding the contested planning merits. In light of the disputed evidence and the close committee vote, it could not say that the outcome was highly likely to have been substantially the same. The observations in R. (Bradbury) v Brecon Beacons National Park Authority [2025] EWCA Civ 489 were applied.

3. The officers’ report materially misled the committee by presenting an apparent consensus about the biodiversity gain while omitting the authority’s consultant’s contrary view. That view was a mandatory material consideration, and its omission also made the reasons inadequate.

4. DMD Policy 84 required preservation of the key characteristics of the Area of Special Character and a search for positive landscape gains. It was not an absolute bar to development. DMD Policy 44 was not a rigid rule requiring refusal whenever heritage harm was identified. The decision-maker could consider improvements and benefits and apply the relevant national planning framework. The Green Belt challenge also failed because the report identified harm and undertook the required very special circumstances balance.

5. Predisposition towards an outcome is not itself apparent bias or predetermination. The question is whether the authority approached the matter with a closed mind or was prejudiced for reasons unconnected with the merits, so that it could not exercise a proper discretion. The land deal created a natural predisposition, but not predetermination. Hospitality accepted by officers and the council leader after the committee resolution, without involvement by committee members or evidence connecting it to the decision, did not establish apparent bias.