Legal Proceedings - Mayday Saxonvale

Frome is facing a plan from Acorn Property Group which will cause significant planning harm and breaches the Council’s planning policy.

If the Acorn plan succeeds, the only opportunity left for a genuine and sustainable expansion of the town centre will have been lost – forever.

Our Director, Damon Moore, has now lodged a judicial review which challenges the legality of the decision to approve Acorn’s Planning Permission.

PLEDGE NOW

Chip into our legal campaign on Crowd Justice

Get an update on the case in our Judicial Review Latest
Understand what a Judicial Review is in Judicial Review Explained
See how things have progressed in our Judicial Review Timeline

Judicial Review Latest

Our Director, Damon Moore, has now lodged a judicial review against the Acorn Planning Decision.

What are the grounds for this judicial review?

Central to the judicial review is the fact that after the Mayday scheme was conditionally approved on 17th August, the Council should have returned the Acorn scheme to the Planning Board for reconsideration.

The reason for the return of the Acorn scheme is that Mayday’s approval is now considered a material consideration. The Planning Board did not have the Mayday plan in front of them when narrowly approving the Acorn scheme by seven votes to six on 11th September last year.

The Mayday scheme is material because does it not contain the Planning Harm that the Acorn scheme does. Planning harm means it deviates from Planning Policy.

The Acorn scheme Planning Harm includes:

1. Not meeting the Council’s requirement for 30% affordable housing. The Acorn scheme provides 24.5%.

2. Not meeting the Councils requirement for employment space in Saxonvale, or adequately contributing to town centre employment space requirements.

3. Demolishing heritage buildings and structures.

The Mayday scheme, which was emphatically approved 12 votes to three, does none of this harm. When approving the Mayday scheme, the Planning Board recognised the critical importance of substantial employment space in this last town centre site.

After previously approving the Acorn scheme by one vote in the second Planning Meeting, would the Planning Committee vote again for such planning harm, given an alternative scheme has now shown it is not justified?

What are the Council’s options?

The Council are currently defending the challenge at a significant cost to the public purse.

If they are confident that it would be approved again, in the context of the Mayday scheme, they could decide not to challenge the decision and let the Acorn scheme return to the Planning Board for the third time.

At the moment they are defending Acorn’s flawed planning application and creating barriers to progressing the Mayday alternative.

What’s next?

We are waiting to hear from a judge as to whether the case will go before a hearing in court. This will take at least some weeks, possibly until the new year.

What can I do?

This process is expensive, and if you are able to chip in any amount on our Crowd Justice page to help in covering these costs it would be greatly appreciated.

Judicial Review Explained

What is a Judicial Review?

A judicial review is when a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.

It does not judge whether the conclusion reached was right or wrong, but whether correct procedures have been followed.

In this case, if the judge decides correct procedures were not followed in awarding Acorn planning permission, then the decision is quashed. Acorn would no longer have planning permission for their Saxonvale scheme and would need to decide whether to re-submit their application.

Who can launch a Judicial Review?

Any individual who disagrees with the decision or action of a public body, where their only means to challenge the decision is by bringing a judicial review claim.

When can a Judicial Review be lodged?

There are two stages to winning planning consent, also known as a decision:
1. Recommendation by Planning Board.
2. When the S.106 agreement is signed and the decision notice issued.

You can make a judicial review challenge before a decision notice, but it would need to be within six weeks after the S106 agreement is signed.

Judicial Review Timeline

January 18, 2021

Acorn Scheme Approved by Planning Board (1st time)

The Acorn Scheme was first approved by the Planning Board with 12 votes to three, but cited as “far from perfect”.

January 18, 2021

August 6, 2021

Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) Letter lodged
(against 1st Acorn recommendation)

A Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) Letter was lodged, which provided the Council with a warning of an intention to lodge a judicial review and the grounds for doing so. Mendip decided to avoid a judicial review by returning the Acorn plan to Planning Board.

August 6, 2021

September 15, 2021

Acorn Scheme Approved by Planning Board (2nd time)

The Scheme was approved by one vote, seven votes to six.

September 15, 2021

August 17, 2022

Mayday Scheme Approved by Planning Board

The scheme was approved emphatically, 12 votes to three. The Planning Board decided to deviate from the housing target policy in Saxonvale to approve the high levels of employment space in the Mayday plan.

August 17, 2022

August 24, 2022

Asset Management Group (AMG) Meeting

Acorn’s S106 is approved for sign off, despite Mayday warnings that this would lead to a judicial review challenge.

August 24, 2022

August 22, 2022

MDC issues Acorn Scheme Decision Notice

After the signing of the S106 Agreement, the planning department issued Acorn Property group full planning consent for Saxonvale.