Please see the following important update on the Clouds Hill Farm development.
We have explained previously that once the Elmbridge planning officers had issued their final decision on the Clouds Hill Farm application that the RACHFD action group would consider a Judicial Review (JR).
A specialist planning barrister was appointed to advise. His advice has just been received and in summary it was that, given the very high bar set by the courts, a JR is unlikely to be successful. The action group has therefore concluded that it wouldn’t be wise to proceed to request a JR.
FEDORA has seen the advice and attended a meeting with Counsel who had clearly conducted a detailed point by point review of the concerns we have raised. Albeit regrettably, FEDORA considers that the group has made the right decision. In addition to the advice that the likelihood of success in a JR application was low, we also discussed the likely outcomes if it were successful and the conclusion is that in the current circumstances, of which more below, it is likely that the application would ultimately succeed, a case of potentially winning a battle at cost but losing the war.
Counsel agreed with the key criticisms that FEDORA has made of the process and didn’t think anything had been overlooked by the RACHFD or FEDORA. He noted the continuing errors made by the Surrey County Highways Authority in their work; commented on the ill-advised conduct and undesirable remarks of some members of the Planning Committee; and agreed that the planning officers had reached a conclusion on the sustainability of the site that many others would not have. By any common sense measures this site is not desirable from the perspective of ease of access to key facilities, as future residents may find.
However, the courts will only permit a review of the reasonableness of a decision if they can be persuaded that it was “so unreasonable” that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it. Counsel, who has extensive experience of working both for and against applicants, was clear that these circumstances did not pass this test. An important element of this assessment is that the law and policy give planning officers significant latitude when interpreting and applying planning polices and guidance. A range of factors can be considered and undoubtedly one is the dire shortfall in home building in Elmbridge compared to targets and the pressure from national government to build.
Disappointing as this is, Counsel was adamant that it is important to respond to applications as we have done to ensure that policy and guidance, flexible as they are, are adhered to. Even where development can’t be prevented it can be modified and mitigations sought. We can also reduce the risk of unhelpful precedent.
LOOKING FORWARD
Looking forward, there is still a need to review and robustly challenge the forthcoming detailed planning application that will be submitted and to hold the developer and planning authorities to account during the 4-year construction phase to ensure they comply with relevant constraints and conditions.
FEDORA will take this on using a combination of in-house experience and external experts where necessary.
In addition, FEDORA:
- Has met with Surrey CC officials to discuss the errors in their work and agreed improvements that will be made to ensure that quality is improved in future
- Has made a formal complaint to Elmbridge about the conduct of the Planning Committee discussion. Not all have been accepted but our points have been noted, and Elmbridge has agreed that improved education for Planning Committee members is required
- Will continue to seek improvements in the accessibility of amenities and the railway station for the benefit of those who currently live to the south of the village and may do so in future.