R (Oliver Perrin) v North Devon District Council & Nicholas Kent-Smith & Jemma Claire Grigg [2026] EWHC 535 (Admin)
Perrin planning committee bias is a significant Planning Court judgment on apparent bias where a councillor participates in determining a planning application involving people he knows.
The court stressed that apparent bias is assessed cumulatively. A Facebook connection or friendly acquaintance may not be enough by itself, but the full pattern of contact, assistance, call-in, comments and participation led a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude there was a real possibility of bias.
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
- [2026] EWHC 535 (Admin)
- Court
- High Court, King's Bench Division, Administrative Court, Planning Court
- Judgment date
- 19th March 2026
- Judge
- HHJ Russen KC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court
- Case number
- AC-2025-CDF-000048
What Perrin decided
The case concerned permission for one open-market dwelling on land at Ley Lane, Patchole, Kentisbury in North Devon.
The application had a difficult procedural history. An earlier decision had already been quashed by consent because adequate reasons had not been given for granting permission contrary to officer advice. The application returned to committee and was ultimately approved again in February 2025.
Mr Perrin, a neighbouring owner and objector, challenged that later decision. HHJ Russen KC held that the decision was unlawful and should be quashed, with apparent bias in the committee process forming a decisive ground.
The test is the fair-minded and informed observer
The court applied the established test from Porter v Magill: having identified all the facts bearing on the allegation, would a fair-minded and informed observer conclude that there was a real possibility that the decision-maker was biased?
The observer is neither complacent nor unduly suspicious. The exercise depends intensely on the facts and context.
The factors must be considered together
A central feature of Perrin is that the court did not isolate each allegation and ask whether that single matter proved bias.
The relevant circumstances included Councillor Prowse knowing one of the applicants and the applicant’s family, being connected to him on Facebook, giving procedural advice before the application was made, calling the application in for committee determination, making complimentary comments about the family and saying the council should support local families, and then participating in later decision-making.
There was also a history of repeated committee decisions contrary to officer recommendations in this particular application.
Taken together, those matters crossed the legal threshold.
A Facebook friendship is not automatically disqualifying
Perrin should not be reduced to a rule that a councillor must withdraw whenever an applicant appears on a social-media friends list.
The court’s reasoning was expressly cumulative and contextual. The Facebook connection was one part of a much broader relationship and course of involvement.
The practical question is therefore not whether one isolated connection exists, but whether the totality of the circumstances creates the appearance of a real possibility of bias.
Predisposition and apparent bias are different
Planning councillors are democratically elected and may legitimately have policy views or predispositions. They are not judges required to approach every planning issue without any prior opinion.
Apparent bias is different. It concerns whether personal connections or conduct make the decision-making process appear unfair. The court rejected the idea that a councillor’s apparent bias can simply be cured by counting enough other committee members who were not themselves biased.
Participation by one influential councillor can matter
Councillor Prowse was a long-serving and senior councillor who participated in the debate. The judge considered that his views were capable of carrying weight with other members.
The apparent bias could therefore not be dismissed as immaterial. The court exercised its discretion to quash the permission.
Why Perrin matters for planning committees
The safest approach is early disclosure and careful consideration of whether a member should participate where there is a personal relationship or prior involvement going beyond ordinary ward-member activity.
For applicants and objectors, the case also shows that an allegation of bias needs evidence and context. Political disagreement, a member’s planning views or a single social-media link will not automatically establish unlawfulness.
Planning Geek’s guide to planning officer reports, committees and bias puts Perrin alongside the wider case law on committee decision-making.
Read the full Perrin judgment
The full Planning Court judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Perrin Planning Committee Bias Case Law Page Updated: 10th September 2026