Councillors cleared of bias over showground planning cases

The ruling rejected claims that local councillors’ involvement with the Newbury and District Agricultural Society had tainted a planning decision.
The case centred on the society’s application to construct a building for showing livestock on non-show days, plus the extension of an internal road and the creation of a pond at the showground, which it owns.
The council’s principal planning officer had recommended refusal on the grounds that the building would have a serious and detrimental impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and that the degree of harm to the amenity of Chieveley residents outweighed the benefits.
However, West Berkshire Council’s western area planning committee overruled him and granted permission in 2012, which was upheld when the application was referred to a district planning committee.
That prompted one of the objectors, nearby landowner Growth Financial Services, to call for a judicial review.
They claimed at London's High Court that the decision should be quashed because it was “infected by the appearance of bias” as a result of councillors’ ties to the Newbury and District Agricultural Society.
The company complained that George Chandler (Cons, Downlands) was a member of the society, Paul Bryant (Cons, Speen) had been a steward at the Royal County of Berkshire Show, run by the society, and that the wife of the police and crime commissioner Anthony Stansfeld (Cons, Kintbury) was a member of the society.
The three councillors had declared a personal, though not prejudicial, interest when the application was discussed at a western area planning meeting in 2012.
Only councillor Virginia von Celsing (Cons, Compton) recused herself, stating that she knew the society’s chairman.
Last week, Growth Financial Service’s claim was rejected by Mr Justice Lewis, who ruled that it was not arguable that the appearance of bias had been created.
He said: "The mere fact that a councillor is a member of a local charity would not of itself give rise to the appearance of bias.
"I have considered whether the fair-minded observer, who is neither unduly suspicious nor unduly complicit, would really consider that a councillor who is a member of this society would really be thought to be likely to favour the society and its application for planning permission because of that.
"In my judgment it is not credible or arguable."
He added that the fact that Mr Bryant worked as a steward at the show would similarly not lead a fair-minded observer to arrive at a conclusion of bias and continued: "That would be unduly suspicious, unduly negative and is not realistic or credible."
The judge ruled that Mr Stansfeld’s connection was "even more distant".
Rejecting an additional complaint that the district council failed to give adequate reasons for its decision, he said that local authorities no longer had a duty to do so and, therefore, if the matter was reconsidered, no reasons would be required.
As a result, he branded the challenge "academic", and said that the claimant was left with no doubt why permission had been granted.
The judge said that councillors had expressed differing views on the application and that the length of debate and quality of contributions made had “provided testimony of the care and thoroughness with which the local authority considered this important issue."