Less than a handful of residents have questioned the appropriateness of me participating in the decision making process when a planning application comes forward for The Heights primary school.
I have made no secret of the fact that I support the setting up of this much-needed school for families in my ward, however I am remaining impartial over where it is sited.
Below is Reading Borough Council's legal team's advice, together with a shorter follow-up email lower down.
______________________________________
From: Quayle, Steven
Sent: 12 June 2014 15:57
To: Ballsdon, Isobel (Councillor)
Cc: Brooks, Chris; Bell, Alison; Roughan, Kiaran; Wood,
Andrew; Dean, Robert
Subject: RE: New FO: Request for Legal advice
Dear Councillor Ballsdon
Chris Brooks has asked me to respond to your e-mail below.
It raises the possibility, given your current position and intentions, of an
allegation that may be raised against you of apparent or actual
bias/predetermination if an application for planning permission comes before
PAC. I consider that your approach is what a reasonable member of the public
would expect an elected Member to do and this would not debar you from taking
part at PAC including voting on the application if you wished to do so.
I take this line
because the law on predetermination has been relaxed by the courts in recent
years with judges recognising the democratic role that Councillors have in the
planning context. This was expressed in the High Court in 2006 where the judge
said “Councillors will inevitably be bound to have views and may have expressed
them about issues of public interest locally. Such may, as here, have been raised
as election issues. It would be quite impossible for decisions to be made by
elected members whom the law requires to make them if their observations could
disqualify them because it might appear that they have formed a view in
advance”
He went on to say “..Unless there is positive evidence to
show that there was indeed a closed mind I do not think that prior observations
or apparent favouring of a particular decision will suffice to persuade the
court to quash the decision”
This view was endorsed by the Court of Appeal in another
case two years later. This approach also received statutory status by virtue of
Section 25(2) of the Localism Act 2011 which means that in so far as prior
expressions of opinion are concerned (or for that matter other means of prior
indication of view) these are not themselves sufficient to impugn the decision.
In short the law requires a Member to have an open mind at
the point of any planning decision but not an empty one.
I hope this helps but if you require any
clarification/further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.
Steven Quayle
_______________________________________
From: Ballsdon, Isobel (Councillor)
Sent: 12 June 2014 23:14
To: Quayle, Steven
Cc: Brooks, Chris
Subject: Supplementary: Request for Legal advice
Dear Steven
Sorry I have just thought of a supplementary question: May I have your permission to publish your
response on my website please?
Kind regards
Isobel
Cllr Isobel Ballsdon
Mapledurham Ward
Mob: 07717 292003
_______________________________________________________________
From: Quayle, Steven
Sent: 23 June 2014 15:28
To: Ballsdon, Isobel (Councillor)
Cc: Brooks, Chris
Subject: RE: Supplementary: Request for Legal advice
Dear Councillor Ballsdon
I apologise for the delay in responding to your e-mail
below. I am content for you to publish the advice on your web site with the
caveat that it is the law as it is now. Although this is not an area of law
that changes frequently a judgement of the High Court could change the
position.
