- Stay Connected
Socialize
Abraham Lincoln
If given the truth, the people can be depended upon to meet any national crisis...
Guildford news...
for Guildford people, brought to you by Guildford reporters - Guildford's own news service
Three Separate Applications for Judicial Review of Guildford’s Local Plan Underway
Published on: 6 Jun, 2019
Updated on: 8 Jun, 2019
Three separate applications for Judicial Review (JR) of the Guildford Local Plan process have been lodged.
The applications have been made by Ockham Parish Council, the Save the Hogs Back campaign and campaigner Jules Cranwell before today’s June 6 deadline, six-weeks from Guildford Borough Council’s decision to adopt the Local Plan.
The solicitor’s letter informing GBC of the three applications.
Mr Cranwell said yesterday evening (June 5, 2019): “Mine is under my name as the applicant. I’m representing the many concerned residents and organizations, as witnessed by the large number of support messages and donations we have received. We are well on the way to £20,000 thus far, which will meet our needs [to fund the legal action] for phase one.
Jules Cranwell photographed in 2015
“I’ve applied for a protective cost order which would limit my personal financial risk.
“We’ve estimated that I will require around £30,000* to go the distance, which we will acquire via crowdfunding.
“GBC would be crazy to try to defend the JR, as a judge will decide in any event.”
Cllr Jan Harwood (Lib Dem, Merrow), lead councillor for planning, planning policy & housing delivery, responding to questions from The Guildford Dragon, said: “Any statutory challenge to the Local Plan must be about the legal process, not about the outcome of the decision itself or any specific planning judgements.
Cllr Jan Harwood
“The council cannot bring a statutory challenge against its own decision to adopt the Local Plan, and on the narrow range of matters that can be argued as part of a statutory challenge, it is not aware of any lack of lawfulness in the process which led to the decision of the council.
“However, the council will carefully consider the terms and basis of any challenge brought and will participate in an open and transparent manner with the court and other parties. The council will fully and evenly consider the arguments for and against any points made by those involved in the proceedings – whether seeking to challenge, or otherwise – and councillors will be advised in full of the council’s options.”
Tony Edwards
Tony Edwards, a spokesperson for Wisley Action Group, confirmed that an application for a JR had been made by Ockham Parish Council and relevant documents served on GBC.
He added: “We are aware of two other applications being handled by OPC’s solicitors namely the application headed by Julian Cranwell on behalf of the villages impacted by green belt changes in the Local Plan and by Compton Parish Council on behalf of the Blackwell Farm allocation.
“We look forward to seeing the response from Guildford Borough Council who will need to decide whether or not it defends this or any other application.”
The first stage of any Judicial Review is to obtain permission to apply. The test for obtaining permission to proceed is that you have an arguable case. The courts weed out cases where it cannot see any arguable error of law.
If permission is granted, the claim can proceed to the substantive stage and a judge decides on papers or following a hearing.
Costs may be awarded to the winning side. According to the solicitor’s letter above there remains a question as to whether the Secretary of State or GBC are named as “first defendant”, relevant if costs are awarded. GBC is believed to have budgeted for the possibility of a JR being made against the Local Plan. JR action was threatened by campaigners in the run-up to the emergency council meeting at which the adoption decision was made.
Normally in planning cases, if a decision is quashed by a judge following a judicial review, the local authority has to reconsider the decision but can still decide either way. In this case, the council has a different political makeup to that which adopted the Plan seven days before the election which could, in that eventuality, affect the result. The fact that the decision was taken in a period of purdah is likely to form a major part of the case presented by those applying for a judicial review.
*This figure was originally given by Julian Cranwell as £60,000. That was incorrect.
Share This Post
Responses to Three Separate Applications for Judicial Review of Guildford’s Local Plan Underway
Leave a Comment Please see our comments policy. All comments are moderated and may take time to appear.
See: E-Bikes for Hire Arrive in Guildford
Alan Robertson
June 6, 2019 at 9:10 pm
It will be interesting to discover whether Guildford Borough Council has now cleaned up its act or whether it will continue with its arrogant, destructive, contempt for its electorate.
Adam Aaronson
June 7, 2019 at 9:51 am
Three simultaneous applications for a Judicial Review clearly expresses the strength of feeling locally.
Is this a record?
Simon Mason
June 7, 2019 at 3:11 pm
Are there any precise details on what legal grounds these are being contested on?
I know that Ockham Parish Council are contesting the inclusion of the Wisley site but was wondering on what legal grounds. Likewise for Compton PC and the Blackwell Farm site allocation.
It was suggested in the article above that Jules Cranwell is challenging the legality of the plan on behalf of the villages but I am wondering on exactly what legal grounds? The lawyers have obviously advised him that there are legal grounds I was just hoping that they/he could share these with the Dragon readers.
Michael Bruton
June 7, 2019 at 6:32 pm
Is it business as usual on Guildford Borough Council? Are the Lib Dems still under the wing of the Tories, the Tories so roundly rejected by the electorate in the recent council elections and not just in Guildford Borough?
Does the Lib Dem spokesperson a wholehearted supporter of the Tory Plan to build massive housing developments in the green belt and countryside of our borough, to concrete it over? If so, I do wonder whether the Lib Dem councillors for Burpham are happy to support massive housing development in their ward at Gosden Hill? I do wonder too if the Lib Dem councillors of Onslow are happy to see Blackwell Farm concreted over?
If the councillors for Burpham and Onslow support all of this – is that what the electors of Burpham and Onslow voted for? Methinks not.
(This written not as a spokesperson for anyone. Merely a council tax payer who disapproves of any political party prepared to vandalise the green belt.)
Jim Allen
June 8, 2019 at 6:50 pm
As technical support to both BCA (Burpham Community Association) and BNF Burpham Neighbourhood Plan) I know the community of Burpham have serious concerns as to the outline plans for Gosden Hill. The lack of infrastructure and the proposed road layouts are severely lacking forethought for this new green belt village.
George Potter
June 10, 2019 at 9:30 am
Speaking as one of the Lib Dem councillors for Burpham, I’m afraid I have to reject Michael Bruton’s suggestions that the Lib Dems are “under the wing of the Tories” or are “wholehearted supporters” of the Local Plan.
As to the stance of my colleagues and I in regards to Gosden Hill and Blackwell Farm, I can only assume that you are not a resident of either ward as otherwise you would have received our election literature which made quite clear what our stances are.
And, as always, all of us have our contact details available on the GBC website which you would be very welcome to use to get in touch to ask our opinions on this issue.
But, in a nutshell, my opinion is that the Local Plan was far from ideal and it was disgraceful to see it rushed through before the election. However, the form the Local Plan has taken is largely due to the terms of reference dictated by central government and the Tories forcing a vote on it during purdah is unfortunately completely legal, no matter how morally unacceptable it was.
So at this point, I would rather we try to make the best of the Local Plan, and refuse planning applications that don’t come with sufficient infrastructure attached, rather than wasting months or years fighting legal battles over the Local Plan process.
George Potter is a Lib Dem borough councillor for Burpham
Ben Paton
June 12, 2019 at 8:01 pm
We should not ‘make the best of the Local Plan’ because it will exacerbate traffic chaos, air pollution, and degradation of our environment without doing anything to address the shortage of social housing.
If this Local Plan had been properly challenged by the main “opposition” party (the Lib Dems) we would not be in the current position with an unsustainable Plan. It is profoundly regrettable that the Lib Dems tamely voted it through in a succession of motions over many years without scrutiny or material amendment until it was too late to change it.
Many voters in the recent election voted for a “new broom” at GBC. They did not vote for brushing the problems with the Local Plan under the carpet. If that’s what the Lib Dems do in office it will be taken as further evasion of their own responsibility over the past ten years for many of its shortcomings.
The priority should be to make the best achievable Plan not to save the face of those that failed to challenge the plan whilst they were in opposition.
George Potter
June 14, 2019 at 3:56 pm
As I recall, Ben Paton, unsuccessfully stood as a GGG candidate against a Liberal Democrat councillor in Effingham.
Perhaps the fact that he finished so far behind might be an indication that he does not speak for, or represent, nearly as many people as he seems to think he does.
Recognising reality and trying to make the best of it is what the Liberal Democrats have done and are doing. The best achievable Local Plan is, unfortunately, at this point, the one we are left with.
The approach Mr Paton is following, acting as though the impossible will become possible if only you wish hard enough, is not only unrealistic but would in fact, if followed, result in having to go back to the drawing board and spending years rewriting the Local Plan from scratch whilst developers take advantage of the absence of a Local Plan to concrete over pretty much any site they want without providing any social housing or infrastructure.
The fact that GGG still only has four councillors is a good indication that not nearly as many people are prepared to stake the future of our borough on false promises and wishes as he keeps claiming there are.
George Potter is a Lib Dem borough councillor for Burpham.
Adam Aaronson
June 17, 2019 at 6:38 am
Could Cllr Potter remind us how Lib Dem councillors voted at the adoption of the Local Plan? My recollection was that significantly more voted against the plan than for it.
Mr Potter seems to be saying that he does not support the public right to challenge the lawfulness of decisions of public authorities afforded by the established Judicial Review process.
Is this the official Lib Dem policy?
Editors note: The Lib Dem leader Caroline Reeves voted for adoption of the Plan, two Lib Dems voted against, the remainder present for the vote, abstained.
George Potter
June 18, 2019 at 4:37 pm
No, I am not saying that I “don’t support the public right to challenge the lawfulness” of planning decisions and nor is that Lib Dem policy.
What I am saying, however, is that at this point a successful judicial review (something which looks to be quite unlikely) would only result in getting the entire Local Plan thrown out, forcing us back to the drawing board and causing at least a couple of years spent on drafting and consulting on a new Local Plan whilst developers get pretty much any planning application they like through on appeal, even in green belt areas.
And that’s why I think those claiming that a judicial review could somehow allow specific strategic sites to be removed or altered are talking nonsense.
It would be great if we could go back and do things differently, but legally we are where we are and any judicial reviews at this point will only either waste lots of money if unsuccessful, or bring about the concreting over of even more greenbelt if successful. I think the vast majority of people would agree that neither of those two options is in the best interests of the borough’s residents.
George Potter is a Lib Dem borough councillor for Burpham
Anthony Edwards
June 8, 2019 at 11:00 pm
The strength of feeling against this irresponsible Local Plan has been expressed time and again but the Tory leadership which previously ran the local council simply refused to listen and pursued a programme of green belt vandalism which defied logic and reason and demonstrated total contempt for the electorate.
The final act of betrayal was undoubtedly the way in which the plan was forced through during a period of purdah and prior to a local election in which Guildford residents booted out some, not all, of the main offenders.
Anthony Edwards is a spokesperson for WAG (Wisley Action Group).
Valerie Thompson
June 10, 2019 at 6:40 am
Unfortunately, the Lib Dem’s managed to persuade some Conservatives and Labour Councillors to support them in their bid to become the dominating party in Guildford.
Cllr Reeves was in favour (in thrall) of the Conservative’s plans to cover the countryside in concrete and now is going ahead with the Conservative trajectory. In effect, we still have former councillors Juneja and Mansbridge in charge. All our protests have been in vain.
Paul Bishop
June 10, 2019 at 10:38 am
Surely people’s time and efforts are now better spend producing and implementing solid neighborhood plans for the areas of discontent. I struggle to believe there will be any winner from the JRs other than the people collecting the legal fees
David Roberts
June 13, 2019 at 12:38 pm
Some of our villages already have Neighbourhood Plans. Unfortunately, these are not allowed to contradict anything in the borough-wide Local Plan, and are no defence against it.
Jim Allen
June 14, 2019 at 3:17 pm
David Roberts is not quite correct. If the Neighbourhood Plan was made first, as with the Burpham Neighbourhood Plan, the Local Plan has to take note of it. It’s only if the Neighbourhood Plan comes after the Local Plan that it is no real defence.
Daniel Pascoe
June 10, 2019 at 8:08 pm
Nimbyism personified.
I really hope the parish councils and people bringing these actions are penalised financially. Action is needed and the “I’m alright Jack” attitude of sitting residents does nothing to help people desperate for housing
Anyone sitting in on the council meetings in person or online can see that this plan has been explored to exhaustion.
Now is the time to get on with it.
John Perkins
June 11, 2019 at 8:10 am
They are penalised. The actions themselves cost large sums of money and a great deal of time and effort. All on top of the cost of the council, paid to look after their interests.
Those desperate for housing will not be well served by this plan, only those desperate for profit.
Ben Paton
June 11, 2019 at 8:42 am
Mr Pascoe does not appear to understand or wish to uphold the rule of law.
If and when government fails to enforce a law that affects Mr Pascoe and he wishes to appeal to the proper application of the rules he may rue his words.
Nor does Mr Pascoe betray much sign of understanding how the housing market works. This Local Plan does more to deliver profits for developers than to deliver social or council housing. In many senses the Plan has been written by developers for developers.
As a matter of fact this plan was not “explored to exhaustion”. The Executive pushed the original Mansbridge/Juneja plan through using its overwhelming majority to prevent any scrutiny of essential elements such as the demographic housing need. That was not even debated!
It is precisely because this Local Plan lacks democratic and legal legitimacy that it has been challenged.
Citizens have every right to take the government to a court of law. They pay their taxes once over to a government that is supposed to follow the rules. They are not to be criticised for having the courage to pay their taxes twice over by paying the cost of holding government to account before the law.
Mr Pascoe’s jibe that this shows an “I’m alright Jack attitude” is a gross and insulting misrepresentation. Many people have spent weeks and months patiently explaining exactly what is wrong with the Local Plan and why it does not conform with basic principles of sustainability and with the NPPF [National Planning Policy Framework].
Mr Pascoe is wrong to dismiss 90,000 comments on the Plan and the brave efforts of thousands of people to try to get Guildford Borough Council to follow the rules.
Far from seeking financially to penalise residents Mr Pascoe should more properly seek to penalise the Executive that pushed a third rate Local Plan through the council the week before an election. He should also criticise the civil servants who have not had the backbone or intellectual honesty to withstand the bullying of the former Conservative Executive.
But perhaps this is the sort of faux “strong” but unaccountable and capricious government that Mr Pascoe admires?
Paul Bishop
June 11, 2019 at 9:27 pm
I think the fundamental point here is that, despite three JR applications, no one seems to be able to say what part of process was actually illegal and will be challenged.
As Mr Paton and others clearly demonstrate in many of the comments, there is a lot of personal feeling linked into this entire Local Plan debacle. However, the court will not care which individuals “pushed through” any such plan (especially when they were actually voted on by the whole council). All they will address is the process used and ensure that was correct. Anyone who thinks that because their interpretation of the NPPF [National Planning Policy Framework] does not match the adopted plan and therefore the entire plan is going to be overturned, is at best misinformed and at worse deluded.
People’s efforts should be towards producing decent quality neighbourhood plans and accept the Local Plan is here to stay, now focus on protecting the genuinely sensitive areas of the borough by adopting Neighbourhood Plans.
Lisa Wright
June 12, 2019 at 10:09 pm
All three JR proposals have already been assessed by planning QCs who have agreed there is a strong case to answer, that’s why they have been submitted.
Of course some of us are aware of the detail of the JRs but there’s no point discussing them before the courts have decided to pursue the cases.
Simon Mason
June 15, 2019 at 9:02 am
Lisa Wright makes it sound like a closed club yet the public have crowdfunded one of these JRs and the council tax payer will be picking up the tab for any defence mounted by GBC. I have forgotten the number of times I have heard the Nolan principles of openness and FoI requests thrown at GBC by the detractors of the Local Plan and yet now the shoe is on the other foot.
Helena Townsend
June 11, 2019 at 1:04 pm
I completely agree with Mr Pascoe.
Funny how no one who lives in the town has been foolish enough to waste tens of thousands launching a JR.
Hopefully, a judge will throw all of these applications out. Look what happened with Waitrose it’s almost unheard of for a JR to succeed. Furthermore, I wouldn’t mind but Wisley Airfield is hardly the most sought after part of the borough I certainly wouldn’t want to live in that area it’s hardly prime real estate.
Lisa Wright
June 15, 2019 at 11:15 am
Donations for the JRs have come from across the borough, including people in town.
Why would you Helena Townsend wish to live on Wisley Airfield? Would it be because it’s heavily polluted from the A3/M25, has poor road infrastructure, is nowhere near a town or doesn’t have a station? Maybe she doesn’t wish to contribute to the destruction of our arable land, wildlife and countryside?
If no one wants to live there, why do they want to develop it?
Danny Pascoe
June 11, 2019 at 1:54 pm
We will soon see who is correct. I would not like to call it, but having watched online and been present at many meetings, the issue genuinely has been explored to the full. Have witnessed time and time again people like Susan Parker come up with daft points (often repeatedly over different meetings) and then been given a patient, and sometimes because it got so tedious, not so patient explanation by Cllr Spooner etc I have no respect for Mr Paton’s cause.
The net effect of all of this is further uncertainty, delay and legal fees one way or another paid for by the residents of Guildford.
Finally, let’s face it, Burpham, as an example, is not Stratford-Upon-Avon. Most of the houses were built on greenfields after World War 2. This makes NIMBY arguments even more hypocritical.