Oliver Perrin, R (on the application of) v North Devon District Council

A planning committee departing from a finely balanced officer recommendation must give intelligible reasons addressing the principal controversial issues. Where the officer’s analysis gives significant weight to retaining land for affordable housing, the committee must explain why an open-market dwelling should receive greater weight. It must also engage with the relevant development-plan policies and the requirement in paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the National Planning Policy Framework to give particular regard to affordable homes.

Apparent bias is assessed cumulatively by reference to the fair-minded and informed observer. A real possibility of bias by one participating committee member makes the decision procedurally unfair and unlawful, although the court retains discretion whether to quash the decision.

The claimant, the owner and occupier of a nearby dwelling, challenged the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for an open-market dwelling at Patchole, North Devon. The application concerned the interaction between Policies ST01, ST19 and DM23 of the North Devon & Torridge Local Plan, including whether the site was within, or merely well related to, the settlement’s principal built form.

The Planning Committee departed from repeated officer recommendations for refusal, relying on the absence of a five-year housing land supply, the tilted balance under paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework, and the vitality of the village. The claimant also alleged apparent bias arising from the participation of a councillor who knew the applicants and had been involved in calling in the application.

1. Grounds 1–3 allowed. The Committee was entitled to depart from the officers’ recommendation because officers advise and members decide. However, its reasons were inadequate and the decision was irrational. The Committee did not explain why an open-market dwelling should receive increased weight over the affordable-housing objective which the officers had given significant weight, even after treating Policies ST19 and DM23 as out of date.
2. The Committee did not demonstrate that it had given the particular regard required by paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the National Planning Policy Framework to policies directing development towards sustainable locations and providing affordable homes. Its reasons did not engage with the officers’ assessment that the application was a Policy DM23(1)(b) case rather than a Policy DM23(1)(a) case.
3. The statutory framework requires regard to the development plan under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and determination in accordance with it unless material considerations indicate otherwise under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The policies had to be read coherently and in context.
4. Ground 4 allowed. Applying the fair-minded and informed observer test, the matters relied on cumulatively established a real possibility that the decision was tainted by apparent bias. Relevant matters included the councillor’s relationship with the applicants, procedural advice given before the application, his call-in of the application, complimentary remarks about the applicants’ family, and his influence in the committee’s final debate.
5. Apparent bias by one participant makes the decision unlawful as procedurally unfair. The court rejected treating apparent bias as a numbers exercise applicable to the committee’s voting majority, while retaining a discretion whether to grant relief. The decision was quashed.

The judgment records that an earlier grant of planning permission was quashed by consent on 2 April 2024 for inadequate reasons and remitted to the Council for redetermination. The present claim challenged the Council’s subsequent decision dated 4 March 2025.