Judicial review challenge settled in “sleeping councillor” planning case

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council has settled a judicial review challenge over a decision which saw the council's planning committee rescind a planning refusal because the applicant claimed a councillor appeared to be asleep during the meeting.

The council has also agreed to reconsider the application again and to contribute to the claimant's legal costs.

The application is for planning permission to build 14 dwellings on a parcel of Green Belt land at Wells Farm, Potters Bar.

The council first considered the development in September 2022 and resolved to refuse the application – with a vote of seven against and six for – despite an officer's report that advised councillors to approve the application.

But the council did not issue a notice of refusal, and a note appeared on the draft minutes for the meeting stating that a review of the decision was taking place.

A note attached to the next committee meeting explained that "concerns were raised relating to how the application was considered by the Committee".

The concerns were submitted by the applicant in an email to the council, which read: "Early in the committee meeting [the councillor] was observed by several people in the room texting or emailing on [his or her] phone, and later … was asleep, or at least had [his or her] head in [his or her] arms on [his or her] desk for several minutes during consideration of our application prior to the vote."

The application was then permitted at the second meeting by eleven votes to two, prompting the claimant, Jonathan Shacks, to pursue a judicial review.

The High Court permitted the case to advance on three grounds.

The first ground alleged that the committee's decision to rescind its previous resolution was unlawful for two reasons. Firstly, because members were not given the information they needed to make a properly informed decision, and secondly, as objectors were not given sufficient information on which to make properly informed representations to the committee as to the recission of the decision.

Grounds two and three contended that an instruction from the Chair that members must completely disregard the previous resolution and reconsider the matter afresh – and that if they could not do so, they would have to leave the room – was unlawful because the committee's previously resolved position was "patently capable" of amounting to a material consideration in the committee's redetermination of the application.

The hearing was scheduled to take place in June of this year.

Commenting on the settlement, Jonathan Shack said: "I'm delighted that this action has been settled and that the grounds associated with this case were aired in public."

A spokesperson for Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council said it is unable to provide any further comment at this stage.

Adam Carey