Bias - disposition of property - local authorities' powers and duties - policies - political parties - change of administration after local elections
R (on the application of Island Farm Development Ltd) v Bridgend County Borough Council: QBD (Admin) (Mr Justice Collins): 25 August 2006



The claimant company (R) sought to set aside a resolution by the defendant local authority to refuse to sell it land. The local authority was the owner of land designated as a specialist site for high-technology usage designed to attract employers.



R had planning permission to develop adjoining land. R entered into preliminary negotiations to purchase the local authority land to facilitate its plans. There had been strong local opposition to the development, and R had sought to obtain a binding agreement prior to forthcoming local elections.



Owing to various conveyancing issues and to a need to satisfy external auditors, no agreement was reached. The elections resulted in a change in control of the local authority and the new administration froze all sale negotiations pending a review. Following a review meeting, the local authority decided not to sell the land to R to preserve future employment opportunities.



R submitted that the decision not to sell the land was vitiated by pre-determination and apparent bias and was not made on its merits. R argued that local authority councillors did not have an open mind and had already formed their views on the matter, having fought the local election on that basis, which was demonstrated by information in their manifestos. R contended that some councillors had been involved with local action groups against its plans and that their involvement demonstrated pre-determination and bias.



R also submitted that the local authority's decision was based on a report containing a series of fundamental errors of fact, and the subsequent analysis was one that no reasonable body could have adopted.



Held, the local authority had considered all relevant matters and approached the decision-making process with no preconceptions. However, councillors were entitled to have regard to and apply policies that they believed in, particularly if those policies formed part of an election manifesto. The court could not interfere in the democratic process and impugn the decisions of local authorities on the basis that they were driven by the political party in control (R v Amber Valley DC, ex parte Jackson (1985) 1 WLR 298 and R v Waltham Forest London Borough Council, ex parte Baxter (1988) CLY 2187 followed).



There was no positive evidence to show that the local authority had a closed mind. Evidence of prior observations or apparent favouring of a particular decision did not suffice in attempting to persuade the court to quash a decision (R v Bury School Organisation Committee, ex parte Louden [2002] EWHC 2749 (Admin) followed).



The local authority's decision to follow the advice of the report was not irrational, as the advice it offered was consistent with previous views and did not contain any material omissions or errors of fact.



Application refused.



Nigel Jones QC, David Lawson (instructed by Eversheds) for the claimants; Andrew Arden QC, Christopher Baker (instructed by the local authority solicitor) for the defendant.