Lewis: predisposition and planning predetermination
R (Lewis) v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council [2008] EWCA Civ 746 explains why a councillor can support a proposal without necessarily being disqualified from deciding its planning application.
The appeal judgment is headed Persimmon Homes Teesside Limited v R (Kevin Paul Lewis). These are alternative titles for the same authority, not two different cases.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2008] EWCA Civ 746
- Court
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
- Judgment date
- 1st July 2008
- Judge
- Pill LJ, Rix LJ and Longmore LJ
- Case number
- C1/2008/0159
The Coatham redevelopment decision
The council supported a long-running mixed leisure and housing project at Coatham, Redcar, and owned the land. Its planning committee resolved to approve the scheme shortly before local elections.
The High Court quashed the permission for apparent bias or predetermination. The Court of Appeal allowed the developer’s appeal, finding that the evidence did not establish the necessary appearance of a closed mind.
The timing of the meeting had been explained. Shared political support, participation in earlier policy decisions and a unanimous vote by a political group did not, by themselves, establish unlawful decision-making.
An open mind is not an empty mind
Councillors are elected to develop and pursue policies. They are not expected to approach every proposal as though they had never considered it or expressed a view.
The requirement is to address the planning merits fairly, consider relevant material and remain willing to be persuaded. A settled political preference is different from refusing to consider the evidence or any new argument.
The court did not abolish apparent bias in planning decisions. It explained that the test must be applied with a proper understanding of an elected councillor’s role, rather than treating that role as identical to a judge’s.
The whole factual context matters
The fair-minded and informed observer is not simply the disappointed objector. The assessment must include the decision-making process, the advice received and the evidence both for and against the allegation.
Equally, a councillor’s own assertion of an open mind is not necessarily decisive. The court must examine what the circumstances actually show.
Read Porter v Magill for the general apparent-bias formulation and Perrin for another planning-committee application of the principle.
The separate environmental challenge also failed
The court rejected a further argument about Habitats assessment. The committee had received expert advice following consultation and could rely on it in the circumstances. That finding was not a general exemption from carrying out the required assessment.
This judgment predates the Localism Act 2011. A present dispute requires the applicable statutory provisions and the authority’s code of conduct to be checked alongside the common-law reasoning; the case alone is not a complete account of current committee procedure.
Read the Lewis judgment
The complete Court of Appeal judgment is available to Gold Members.
Lewis Case Law Page Updated: 12th September 2026