TBL Staff

Can a Freemason councillor take part in a decision when another Freemason or branch of Freemasonry has an interest in the outcome of the decision? That was what Newman J had to unravel in the High Court on 5 April 2006 in R (Port Regis School Ltd) v North Dorset District Council [2006] EWHC 742 (Admin).

The case concerned an allegation of apparent bias in respect of a decision taken by the full North Dorset District Council. This was to accept the recommendation of its Development Control Committee to approve an application for planning consent by the Gillingham and Shaftesbury Agricultural Society. The apparent bias was in the light of the fact that two members who attended and voted at the full Council meeting were Freemasons. The application was for planning permission to use agricultural land as a showground and to erect a pavilion. The supporting business plan stated that the Agricultural Society had held talks with the masonic lodge in Gillingham about providing a dedicated room in the pavilion for the lodge's use in relation to which the lodge would provide a capital injection of some £350,000 as well as contributing to the running costs.

The officer's recommendation to Development Control Committee was that there could be no justification for the Development in accordance with normal planning policies and that it should consequently be refused. However, the Committee resolved that it was minded to approve the application and, since the application amounted to a departure from the Local Plan, referred it to the full Council for approval. The officer recommendation to full Council was that the application should be refused because justification had not been established and there would be unacceptable harm to the countryside. In the circumstances the recommendation was 'firmly to refuse planning permission'. The Council nevertheless approved the application.

The Court noted that following Porter v Magill [2002] LGR 51, the appropriate test for determining an issue of apparent bias is whether a fair minded and informed observer, having considered the relevant facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased. It is also necessary (per Georgiou v London Borough of Enfield [2004] EWHC 779) to look beyond personal or pecuniary interests 'to consider whether a fair minded and informed observer would conclude there was a real possibility of bias in the sense that members approached the decision without impartial consideration of all relevant planning issues'.