A group of individuals can feel like it is David v Goliath when seeking to prevent what they see as inappropriate development in the countryside, but that is not necessarily the case.
Such a situation appears to be arising in relation to the development of land at Vearse Farm in Bridport, where judicial review proceedings are being taken against Dorset Council by an objector organisation, following the grant of outline planning permission for a mixed-use development including up to 760 homes and a new school on a 50 hectare site, which broadly coincides with land allocated for development by the Local Plan.
The ADVEARSE campaign group has made several representations to Dorset Council objecting to the proposal, including the impact on the character of Bridport. ADVEARSE feels this would be greatly damaged by an estate on the attractive hillside at the edge of town, within the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (the AONB).
Dorset Council, in making its decision to grant outline planning permission on 2 May 2019, acknowledged that the whole of the site and its surroundings are located within the AONB. However, they took the view that the development would be screened by surrounding hills, which will limit the impact of any development on the wider character and appearance of the AONB. The site’s location on the western edge of Bridport’s built-up area means that it will read as an urban extension to the town and, therefore, visual impacts will be limited. They considered that the visual and wider landscape impacts of the development are acceptable and that these must be balanced against other policy considerations which weigh in favour of development.
According to the ADVEARSE website, an application seeking permission to judicially review the decision to grant outline permission was filed on 12 June 2019.
There is nothing unusual about an objector group seeking to use judicial review as a means to prevent what they see as inappropriate development, but the stakes can be high, with significant costs of effective legal representation, and the potential exposure to an adverse costs award in the event that judicial review does not succeed, being significant barriers to accessing justice.
