A recent High Court decision, R (On the Application Of Perrin) v North Devon District Council [2026] EWHC 535 (Admin), concerning a planning permission granted by North Devon District Council provides an important and timely reminder of how Councillors can fall foul of allegations of apparent bias and the risks of departing from officer advice.

 

A decision with a chequered history

The planning application in question related to an open market dwelling. What immediately sets this case apart is the procedural history.

On three separate occasions, the planning committee reached a decision that was contrary to the recommendation of the officer report.

That is not unlawful in itself. Planning committees are, of course, entitled to depart from officer advice but, as confirmed by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in Duff, must be justified by clear, intelligible and adequate reasons that genuinely engage with officer recommendations.

 

However, the context here was unusual.

• The first decision was quashed by consent following an application for Judicial Review.
• The second decision was not acted upon following further legal advice.
• The third decision, which was ultimately challenged, was found by the Court not to be supported by adequate reasons and in any event, the conduct of one Councillor gave rise to apparent bias.

This repeated departure from officer advice, particularly against the backdrop of an earlier quashing, formed part of the wider factual matrix the Court was required to consider.

Where councillors repeatedly depart from officer advice, particularly following a quashing as a result of an application for Judicial Review, greater caution is required as such patterns may contribute to an appearance of bias.

 

An unusually candid acknowledgement of relationships

Another notable feature of the case was the Council’s frank acceptance that there were “friendly” relationships between members of the planning committee and individuals connected with the application.

Before the impugned decision was taken, concerns were raised by the claimant. In response, the Council confirmed, among other things, that one councillor:

• Had previously worked with the agent acting for the applicants.
• Was “friends” on Facebook with one of the planning applicants and the agent.
• Displayed what the Council itself described as a “friendly disposition” towards a former Council employee who was also a planning applicant.

It is relatively rare to see such matters acknowledged so openly in correspondence ahead of a committee decision and begs the question: why did the Councillor continue to participate in the decision making process?

 

When does familiarity tip into apparent bias?

The case provides a helpful and nuanced discussion of the legal test for apparent bias, namely whether a fair‑minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias (see Porter v Magill). It also provides a very helpful discussion of the relief that may be granted by the Courts when apparent bias is found.

 

Cumulative effect of factors

The Court did not focus on any single factor in isolation. Instead, applying Zuma’s Choice Pet Products Ltd v Azumi Ltd it assessed the cumulative effect of a number of circumstances, including:

• A councillor’s personal knowledge of, and social media connection with, one of the applicants.
• The provision of procedural advice by that councillor to an individual connected with the application.
• The councillor’s decision to call in this application for committee determination, when a previous and arguably more significant application in the same village, raising similar issues had not been called in.
• Complimentary comments made during the meeting about the applicant’s family and the importance of supporting local families.

Of particular significance was the Court’s conclusion that the explanation given for treating similar applications differently was not satisfactory. The Court observed that the fair‑minded observer did not need to be “unduly suspicious” to think that familiarity may have played a role in the decision‑making process.

 

Why this case matters for councillors

This decision does not suggest that councillors must have no prior knowledge of applicants, particularly in smaller communities. Nor does it mean that social media connections or professional overlap will automatically amount to apparent bias.

What it does underline is the importance of context, transparency and consistency. Apparent bias often arises not from one obvious misstep, but from a pattern of conduct which, when viewed as a whole, undermines public confidence in the decision‑making process.

 

Key takeaways for councillors and local authorities

There are several clear lessons from this case:

• Repeated departures from officer advice require care Going against professional recommendations is lawful, but doing so repeatedly, particularly following a quashing, increases legal risk, particularly where the applicant is personally known to a decisionmaker. Clear, cogent and defensible reasons are essential.
• Friendly relationships should be treated with great caution Familiarity does not automatically disqualify a councillor, but it should prompt careful consideration of whether participation could give rise to an appearance of bias.
• Consistency matters Treating similar applications differently without a robust explanation can be highly problematic. Inconsistency in the treatment of similar applications was a significant factor in the Court’s reasoning.
• Comments made in meetings can be scrutinised closely Well‑intentioned remarks about supporting local families may nonetheless contribute to a perception of partiality when viewed alongside other factors.

 

A reminder of the importance of public confidence

Ultimately, this case is a reminder that the planning system depends on public confidence. Even where there is no actual bias, the appearance of bias can be enough to render a decision unlawful.

For councillors, the message is not to disengage, but to approach decision‑making with heightened awareness of how actions, relationships and remarks may be perceived by an informed observer. Careful adherence to codes of conduct and a willingness to step aside where appropriate remain vital safeguards for both individuals and councils alike.

 

For legal guidance and advice on how this judgement may apply to your business, please contact Maria O’Loan or another member of our Planning and Environment team.

While great care has been taken in the preparation of the content of this article, it does not purport to be a comprehensive statement of the relevant law and full professional advice should be taken before any action is taken in reliance on any item covered.