The Court held that Guildford Borough Council's planning committee chairman had legitimately changed his view on whether to grant the planning permission when taking the decisive vote on the matter.
A neighbour to the property where the extension was proposed had claimed that a legal adviser had told the committee's chairman to follow the planning officer's recommendations in the event of a tied vote. He claimed the chairman's "discretion was fettered by the advice given".
The chairman refuted these claims and said the solicitor had advised him that he could cast his vote as he liked. The decision to approve planning permission was taken "on the merits of the application" and the chairman decided to change his mind "based on the size of an adjacent dwelling which also had a significant extension which was broadly comparable [to the extension being proposed]," the ruling said, according to a report from legal information service Lawtel.
"The chairman's evidence was clear that he changed his mind with regard to the planning merits and the local authority was not precluded from relying on that evidence. It was the best evidence of what was in his mind at the time," the Court said.
In considering the correct approach to the appearance of bias, the judgment considered four main considerations. It was held that the importance of the appearance of bias is more limited in the context of deciding what elected councillors thought than in a judicial context; however the question of appearance is not irrelevant. A statement given by the decision maker is relevant and should be taken into consideration, but should not conclude the matter. Lastly, a judgement was required as to whether there was such a risk that the decision was taken with a closed mind that it should not be upheld.
The Court rejected the neighbour's judicial review application and ruled that the chairman was not biased. The planning permission was upheld.
The neighbour launched a second, seperate judicial review claim, which was based on procedural unfairness over the failure of the committee to vote on a motion to visit the site of the proposed extension. It was held that "the chairman should have allowed a vote on the motion for a site visit first", accordingly the judicial review claim succeeded and the planning permission was quashed.
