Ghadami v Harlow District Council & Anor

Ghadami v Harlow District Council & Anor

The decision to grant planning permission was vitiated by the participation of Councillor Garnett, Chairman of the Planning Committee, whose conduct gave rise to a real possibility of apparent bias or predetermination. This defect was sufficient to quash the planning permission, as the decision was reached by a narrow majority and his participation was material. Other grounds of challenge, including those relating to notices, advertisements, the EIA screening opinion, and other procedural matters, were rejected as either unsubstantial or not causing prejudice.

Parties
Claimant: Mohammed Reza Ghadami; Defendant: Harlow District Council; Interested Party: Sapphire Retail Fund Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; planning permission quashed for apparent bias/predetermination; other grounds dismissed.
Legal Topics
Apparent Bias, Predetermination, Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Permission, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Planning Law Apparent Bias Predetermination Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Permission Procedural Fairness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Reza Ghadami

Claimant

Harlow District Council

Defendant

Sapphire Retail Fund Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision to grant planning permission was vitiated by apparent bias or predetermination of the Planning Committee Chairman
  2. 2 Whether statutory requirements for notices and advertisements were complied with
  3. 3 Whether the Environmental Impact Assessment screening opinion was valid and applicable

Ratio Decidendi

The decision to grant planning permission was vitiated by the participation of Councillor Garnett, Chairman of the Planning Committee, whose conduct gave rise to a real possibility of apparent bias or predetermination. This defect was sufficient to quash the planning permission, as the decision was reached by a narrow majority and his participation was material. Other grounds of challenge, including those relating to notices, advertisements, the EIA screening opinion, and other procedural matters, were rejected as either unsubstantial or not causing prejudice.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; planning permission quashed for apparent bias/predetermination; other grounds dismissed.

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review of the screening opinion refused.
  • Permission granted on other grounds; claim succeeds on apparent bias/predetermination; planning permission quashed.