Round 4 is coming to Waverley Towers soon!
The developer of a controversial Haslemere housing scheme has won its fight in the High Court to get a planning appeal refusal decision quashed.
Para starting “Now, an entirely new…” : first line – replace “on a minor administrative error” with “because of a minor administrative error”
Now, thanks to an almighty cock-up – the whole costly shooting match has to be rerun!
In May this year, Government Inspector Tom Bristow dismissed Redwood South West Ltd’s appeal against Waverley planner’s refusal for 110 dwellings and a separate single dwelling at Red Court off Midhurst Road.
During the public Inquiry in January, the Inspector “liked” a LinkedIn post by Mr Charles Collins (a planning witness for Redwood).
The details of the incidents are here: Controversy rears its ugly head again at The Red Court, Haslemere Inquiry.
Not only did the Inspector “like” Mr Collins’ post, but to add to the fiasco, Waverley’s Head of Planning, Claire Upton-Brown, “liked” it too!
The Waverley Web highlighted the issue, as we were more than a little perturbed by the Inspector liking the appellant witness’s post. We believe Inspectors should be impartial, as failure undermines the public’s confidence in the entire system (which is limited in any case). We hoped this was a misjudgement by the Inspector rather than something more sinister…
One of THE most controversial planning inquiries in Waverley is over.
Here is an extract from the High Court Sealed Consent Order: AC-2024-LON-002245 Sealed Consent Order 30 07 24 (2) (1)
Apologies for the legal jargon that follow, folks – but in circumstances such as these, it is important to set the record of the Court’s Consent Order straight from the judge’s mouth.
Here it goes:
The Claimant (Redwod) and the First Defendant (Planning Inspectorate) agree that the LinkedIn post was objectively written, made no comment on the merits, and was simply an update on Mr Collins’ attendance at the public inquiry and his role.
On or around 30 January 2024, a local news website published a story about the Inspector liking Mr Collins’ post. There were comments in response to that article which suggested that by liking Mr Collins’ post, the Inspector had shown a lack of impartiality.
On or around 5 February 2024, the Planning Inspectorate wrote to the local residents’ association, the Haslemere South Residents Association (“HSRA”), on behalf of the Inspector, explaining the circumstances of the Inspector liking the post on LinkedIn and emphasising the Inspector’s impartiality.
The Inspector’s decision letter dated 24 May 2024 addressed the impartiality issue in paragraphs 18 – 23. Therefore, it was a material matter.
The First Defendant accepts that Rule 18(3) of the Town and Country Planning Appeals (Determination by Inspectors)(Inquiries Procedure)(England) Rules 2000 required the Inspector to notify in writing the persons entitled to appear at the inquiry who appeared at it of the matter.
The First Defendant accepts that Rule 18(3) of the Town and Country Planning Appeals (Determination by Inspectors)(Inquiries Procedure)(England) Rules 2000 required the Inspector to notify in writing the persons entitled to appear at the inquiry who appeared at it of the matter in question and to afford them an opportunity of making written representations to him or to ask for the re-opening of the inquiry.
The Claimant was not notified of the issues, afforded an opportunity to make written representations, nor provided with the Planning Inspectorate’s correspondence to the HSRA.
A claim for statutory review was filed and issued on 1 July 2024 and served on the First and Second Defendants on 2 July 2024.
In the circumstances set out in paragraph 7 above, the First Defendant accepts that the Appeal Decision was unlawful on Ground 2 of the claim and consents to the Appeal Decision being quashed on that basis. The Council also agrees that the Appeal Decision is unlawful on this basis.
. For the avoidance of doubt, the Claimant reserves its position on Grounds 1, 3 and 4 of the claim and the First Defendant does not concede on any other grounds of the claim.
However, as the Parties agree that the Appeal Decision should be quashed on Ground 2, the Parties also agree that the other grounds are academic in the context of these proceedings as it is agreed the decision is to be quashed on Ground 2.
So there you have it, folks.
In a nutshell:
Redwood has managed to get the planning appeal quashed at the High Court—hard to believe, but the grounds for the quashing were that an email the Planning Inspectorate sent to Haslemere South Residents Association assuring residents that Inspector Tom Bristow was, in fact, impartial (despite the LinkedIn “like” of the developer’s agent Savills Mr Collins —(posted from the live planning inquiry)—was not also shared with the developer.
“You couldn’t make it up, really!” The whole Inquiry fiasco has to be re-run all over again.The whole process feels all the more outrageous given that the developer.” the claimant” has had the appeal decision overturned on the basis that he was unable to comment on the question of the Inspector’s impartiality—when it is actually stated in the consent order that the claimant agrees that the Inspector was indeed impartial. (see the section in Red above)
Now, an entirely new inquiry will be run in April 2025 at The Burys, Godalming, because of a minor administrative error by the Planning Inspectorate of Englands and Wales (PINS), even though the judge who overturned the original objection didn’t challenge the validity or grounds on which the Inspector had rejected the original planning application.
WHAT an utter waste of council taxpayers’ money.
The public only has until Dec 4th to object again – so spread the word!
Redwood Ltd. undoubtedly expects the public to believe that, as they have already objected, they will lose the energy to bother again.
But it does matter, as we imagine Redwood Ltd is opportunistically seizing new Labour’s drive to build, with new higher housing targets faced by Waverley Council. But this site is not in any way ‘grey belt’—it is prime Surrey Hills AONB. If permission is granted, it will set a national precedent in favour of building major developments on protected landscapes.
To be continued… with pictures of the site.
Redwood will fail as they are clearly unable to demonstrate ‘exceptional circumstances’ to destroy an AONB.
I am amazed at the High Court decision and that they could fall for such a flimsy excuse to require a completely new appeal process with all the additional costs to WBC.
If Redwood were concerned about this ‘like’ comment (that appeared to favour them) they should have stated so at the start of the first appeal. Their legalistic jiggery pokery will not prevail.
TheWW concurs with your sentiments, we only hope you are proved right. But Haslemere residents must shout their opposition from the rooftops