High Court judge rejects claims of bias in decision to grant planning permission to NHS trust for endoscopy unit

A councillor did not show bias by voting for a planning application by an NHS trust where he was a governor, the High Court has found.

In Webb, R. (On the Application Of) v London Borough Of Bromley [2023] EWHC 2091 (Admin) Mr Justice Lane also found that although Cllr Anthony McPartlan’s wife Billie was a patient governor serving alongside him at King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, bias still did not arise.

The case was brought by local resident Philip Webb against the London Borough of Bromley over its grant of planning permission to the trust for an endoscopy unit and substation at Princess Royal University Hospital. Mr Webb argued he faced loss of amenity as a result.

An officer’s report had recommended refusal of the application but the planning committee voted 8-7 to grant planning permission and Cllr McPartlan spoke in favour having declared an interest as a governor of the trust.

Lane J said Mr Webb’s case, until 48 hours before the hearing, was that the hypothetical observer would infer from Cllr McPartlan's position as a governor that there was a real possibility of bias in favour of the trust’s application.

But it then became apparent that Billie McPartlan, Cllr McPartlan's wife, was a patient governor there and that the couple were co-trustees of charity Billie's Fund, which supports those suffering from leukaemia, as Ms McPartlan had some years earlier.

Lane J said that apart possibly from a decision to hold the planning committee meeting, during the pre-election period, “I can see no possible basis for quashing”.

He said no question of personal interest arose and elected members were entitled to express views on planning issues.

Committee members had long experience of the project and had detailed officers’ reports.

"I am far from persuaded that the imminence of the local elections at the time of decision, on the evidence, demonstrated that those who voted in favour of this planning application had minds closed to the planning merits of the proposal,” Lane J said.

Quashing in such circumstances would be “damaging to the democratic process if the decisions of elected councillors are to be quashed on the basis of the additional and unusual circumstances thought to have been decisive in this case”.

He said that as a governor Cllr McPartlan “stands at two removes from the executives of the trust, who are its primary decision makers in decisions such as whether to seek approval for the endoscopy unit”.

A hypothetical observer would see governors provide an element of local accountability, and were in no sense to be taken as advocates for the trust's activities.

Bromley submitted it would be deeply contrary to the public interest if personal experiences - such as the impact of cancer on Cllr and Ms McPartlan - were to exclude participation in local government decision making relevant to healthcare provision. Lane J said there was “much force in these submissions”.

He also found no evidence of Cllr McPartlan having predetermined the outcome of the planning application.

Mark Smulian