BELOW is the official proclamation about the time and place of Haywards’ appeal against West Dorset District Council’s refusal of permission for the re-development of the South West Quadrant in Bridport. The appeal will be at the West Bay Holiday Park (the Park Dean caravan site) and it will run from January 26 – 28, 2010.
Haywards originally applied in conjunction with West Dorset District Council, and most people thought for a while that, because of this, no appeal could take place against district councillors’ refusal to give permision – because how could the council appeal aganst a decision made by its own councillors? But Haywards argued, among other things, that it would be a breach of their human rights if they were to be forever tied to the district council, and thereby deprived of some of the powers that land-owners are normally entitled to exercise over their own land – such as the power to seek to develop it. Hence, this appeal is being made by Haywards alone.
Now, all of this raises one very interesting question that I don’t currently know the answer to: if Haywards win this appeal, who will pay the costs of it? I don’t know much about the costs of appeals, but I’d be surprised if this one ends up costing less than £10,000. It could be much more.
Planning inspectors have some powers to decide who should pay costs, depending (for example) on whether appellants ask for an order to pay costs to be made against a planning authority. I wonder, in this case, if Haywards do win, and if West Dorset District Council is asked to pay costs, how the council would feel about having to stump up for an application which it was originally part of?
Would it be regarded as a financial embarrassment - or a price worth paying for getting the go-ahead for re-development?
And what would council tax-payers think?
APPEALS UNDER SECTION 78 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
Notice is hereby given that the appeal, as listed below, has been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate against the West Dorset District Council’s refusal of the following application.
The following appeals will proceed by way of an Inquiry:
Appellant: Hayward & Co
Development:
1. Develop land by the erection of 175 dwellings, 1,814 square metres of new commercial floor space (including use classes A1 (Shops), A3 (Restaurants and cafes), B1 (Business), a taxi office and a new bus station with associated office). Refurbish all remaining buildings and create new vehicular and pedestrian accesses. All correspondence should quote the reference APP/F1230/A/09/2113294/NWF and WDDC ref. 1/D/2008/000574.
2. Demolish Cafe Royal and attached retail units, public toilets, garages behind public toilets, bus stop, Unit 94 St Michaels Trading Estate, Burwood Annex, Units 33-38 and 52-54 St Michaels Trading Estate, Stover Building, cattle market sheds (units 2A & 137A) and part Bridport Industries (North).All correspondence should quote the reference APP/F1230/A/09/2113294/NWF and WDDC ref. 1/D/2008/000576
Location: SOUTH WEST QUADRANT/ST MICHAELS TRADING ESTATE, ST MICHAELS TRADING ESTATE, BRIDPORT, DT6 3RE
The Inquiry will be held on the 26th – 28th January 2010 starting at 10.00am, at West Bay Holiday Park (Park Dean), Forty Foot Way, West Bay, Bridport, Dorset, DT6 4HB.
Copies of the appellant’s grounds of appeal and the Council’s reasons for refusal can be inspected at the Council’s Offices at the address below or at Mountfield, Rax Lane, Bridport.
Should you require a copy of the “Guide to taking part in planning appeals”, please telephone this office and one will be sent to you free of charge.
The Planning Inspectorate will only circulate the decisions to those who request a copy.
Related posts:
andrew leppard
10/12/2009 at 12:33 PM
The average income per household for the district cannot be applied to these flats (there are no houses) as they are likely to be below average. Even the affordable units have no garden and just one parking space while 1.4 is the average requirement. The figures also do not account for the loss of expenditure generated by existing occupants.
This is a fairly typical example of the inadequately researched if not misleading information served up by the landowners/developers.
206 new jobs is a very specific figure considering we know of no definite new employers. Only employers can make these claims.
The most significant economic movement in reality will involve the change of use from light industrial and public amenity to private residential which may increase the land value by around 400%. The benefits of this increase would be collected in Poole and Dorchester, not in Bridport.
Why else would we be informed that Bridport’s Bus and Coach facilities are operating ‘Below capacity’ and therefore should be halved (to make way for private flats) despite the current government policy to increase the use of public transport? The nearest train station is 17 miles away and overall parking is being reduced (to discourage car use). How can this be regeneration?
Normally an appeal cannot be granted to a joint applicant with a local authority, but it has been made possible since the WDDC has declared that they ‘will not be developing the site themselves’! One is left to wonder how this transfer of assets will be made and at what point.
Robert Ridge has paid Business Rates to WDDC, and rent (alone totalling probably more than £60,000) to Mr Hayward over ten years and yet neither party appears to recognise his rights.
Investment is clearly needed at St Michael’s Trading Estate but this must not be used as an excuse to destroy assets that benefit Bridport, especially the opportunity to attract new businesses and develop community facilities. This is a place for expanding employment from what is already growing.