For those interested in planning, two interesting case studies have just popped up:

1)      A Devon council tried to refuse outline planning permission to a developer for 122 houses but the developer took it to appeal and the council lost because they hadn’t met their housing-land supply. As we know, developers can basically build where they like – permission is just a pretend formality – as is the Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan.

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/great-torrington-appeal-decision-leaves-4064944?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

But Sevenoaks Council is trying to make a stand, they have failed to meet their supply because they refuse to build on greenbelt land but their LP has been rejected by the inspector:

As much as I really respect Sevenoaks Council for doing this and wish other council’s would do so too, I think statements like this:

‘We believe, whilst this is not the reason the inspector has given, failing to meet the government’s housing figure would potentially impact on subsequent Local Plans across the country.’

Are somewhat naïve as this has been going on for years under the last and present iterations of the NPPF.  They will undoubtedly be brushed off by the Secretary of State, as were ADVEARSE before our JR.  They may win any subsequent JR on the technicality that the inspector has rejected the plan because ‘it was not legally compliant in respect of the council’s duty to cooperate’, her main concerns being ‘the lack of constructive engagement with neighbouring authorities to resolve the issue of unmet housing need and the absence of strategic cross-boundary planning to examine how the identified needs could be accommodated’, whereas the council says its ‘Plan submission included more than 800 pages of evidence detailing how it had worked with neighbouring authorities during its production of the Plan’ and ‘that those councils and other organisations involved in its development supported the council’s evidence and approach.’  If the inspector had explicitly rejected the plan on the grounds of it failing to meet housing-land supply – the real reason for the rejection – then the judge would undoubtedly be able to uphold the decision.  However, if they win on a technicality, the inspector has only to reject it again citing the real reasons.

The real situation is what the council suggests: ‘If we are not to follow the evidence to make our Plan then the government may just as well dictate how many homes an area should have and then pick sites, we need to put an end to the thinly veiled charade that Local Plans are in any way locally led.’  If I were the leader of the council and the plan still gets rejected further down the line, I would be inclined to publicly rip it up and say, what’s the point, clearly developers can build where they like so we might as well leave it all to the free market and bin the pretence.

Sarah Carney, ADVEARSE

There has been some local and national news coverage of the outcome of the JR. Links/cuttings for this coverage are listed below. Generally the coverage has been sympathetic.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8207755/Plans-1-000-new-homes-Area-Outstanding-Natural-Beauty-Dorset-green-light-court.html

https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/planning/401-planning-news/43354-campaigners-win-judicial-review-challenge-over-major-scheme-but-judge-declines-to-grant-relief

https://www.bridportnews.co.uk/news/18370627.campaigners-challenging-development-vearse-farm-lose-judicial-review/

One of the most repeated comments we hear in relation to Bridport’s (Vearse Farm) urbanisation is – “How on earth can this happen?”

It is incredibly difficult to understand how Dorset Council could possibly grant planning permission for this massive development on AONB land on the outskirts of Bridport. Also, grant this permission in the face of massive local people, Town Council and Parish Councils opposition.

But then articles like the one linked below demonstrate just how dysfunctional and corrupt the whole planning system is. Best to sit down when you read it as it is guaranteed to make your blood boil.

But there is something increasingly local communities are doing where disastrous planning applications are granted – using Judicial Reviews to challenge and overturn these terrible planning decisions. Please join us in our campaign to stop Bridport’s urbanisation.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jan/31/britain-land-housing-crisis-developers-not-building-land-banking

Following on from an earlier post regarding Bridport Town Council declaring a climate emergency we now have Dorset Council doing the same! But in DC’s case this is just rank hypocrisy!

Below is the Bridport News article link:
https://www.bridportnews.co.uk/news/17644385.dorset-council-declares-climate-emergency-after-morning-of-protests-outside-south-walks-house/

The article says “DORSET Council has declared a ‘climate emergency’ following a morning of protests.” Also “A photo tweeted by the council showed that 69 Councilors were in favour of the motion, while two Councilors were against and six abstained from the vote.”

Talk about shameless virtue signalling and hypocrisy!

18 months ago West Dorset County Council (DC’s predecessor) Planning Committee passed Vearse Farm planning application in the teeth of massive opposition by 11 votes with one lone councilor objecting. Would DC now pass such a planning application with all the environmental and climate change damage?

Lets help Dorset Council recover their virtue by giving them a chance to halt the Vearse Farm development!

Help us raise the funds for the Judical Review and then DC can do the right thing – not oppose our JR and consign the massive and destructive VF plan in the dustbin. They can then get on with plans that don’t damage the environment and which actually provide genuine affordable housing for local people!

Bridport Town Council are considering declaring a climate emergency according to a Bridport News Article. The town council pledge to become carbon neutral by 2030.

This is a very laudable aim and as the Town Council say it will require Central Government and County Council support. But when you consider that over 20% of new houses sold on West Dorset are second homes or holiday lets how an earth can the destructive Vearse Farm major urbanisation of Bridport (imposed by Dorset Council and opposed by Bridport town Council) help achieve the town’s carbon neutral goal. After all second and holiday homes have to be heated in Winter even when unoccupied! What is needed is genuinely affordable houses for local people.

We have 24 days left to fund the Judicial Review and try and stop Vearse Farm urbanisation. Please help by going to our Crowdfunder appeal or donating directly (see our donations page). https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/save-west-dorset-aonb

https://www.bridportnews.co.uk/news/17642611.bridport-could-declare-climate-emergency-today/