Richard Buxton Solicitors sent a letter to South Somerset District Council

Download Richard Buxton Solicitors' letter to SSDC.

Richard Buxton Solicitors sent a letter to South Somerset District Council:

Dear Sirs

Hadspen Estate – “The Newt” including proposals for Yarlington Lodge

We have been instructed by residents of Yarlington to consider the way proposals for development at the Newt have been progressed. We have been provided with an astonishingly long list of some 63 planning applications. We are also aware that the area concerned not only includes Hadspen House itself and surrounding land, but also nearby Shatwell Farm (connected to Hadspen by a new road), and on from there the village of Yarlington.

In these circumstances the question that immediately comes to mind is whether the overall Newt project has been subject to environmental impact assessment pursuant to the EIA Regulations 2017 (or predecessor regulations to similar effect), or even screened for same? The Newt is a substantial project covering a large area and falls within Schedule 2 paragraph 12(c) (where the screening threshold is only 0.5 ha). In this context, we note one of the many delegated reports stating

“Recent approvals at the site have allowed the comprehensive redevelopment of the gardens and parkland as a visitor attraction, and the change of use of the house and outbuildings to form a spa hotel. The proposed development would form a part of the wider visitor attraction at the estate. It is proposed that all public access will be via the main car park approved to serve the approved tourist attraction.”

Can you please provide copies of screening opinions in connection with the project and/or its component parts? As you are aware, EIA cannot be avoided by so-called "salami-slicing": see Case C-142/07 Ecologistas en Accion v A de Madrid, also C-2/07 Abraham v Wallonia.

Turning to Yarlington Lodge, we understand that there has been what might be described as an outcry from local people at the prospect of its becoming a conference etc. centre and it may be that the Estate is, sensibly, rethinking those. However, the concerns raised and investigations involved have given rise to serious concerns about the propriety of the planning process including the involvement of councillors yet with none of the various decisions relating to the Newt being dealt with by the Council’s planning committee, but rather delegated to officers. This requires explanation.

It is also necessary to confirm, please, that there has been no contact at all between elected members (whether members of the planning committee or others) and officers in relation to proposals at the Newt; and if contrary to that expectation there has been, full details.

In this regard we understand that one of your Councillors, Henry Hobhouse, indeed we believe he is Chair of the planning committee, sold land to the Newt for a nominal/unstated value enabling him to receive a valuable water supply. We understand he received hospitality provided by owners of the Newt in South Africa. If any of this is correct, full details, including details of any payments or cash equivalents, must be disclosed.

While writing, there is also some concern that accommodation intended for holiday lets (for example at Searts Barns, Welham) has been counted, even if not explicitly, towards satisfying the Council’s housing supply requirements. This would be inappropriate, and we trust you can confirm that concerns to that effect are misplaced.

The immediate reason for our instruction in this matter has been the failure of the Council to respond substantively to Freedom of Information requests raised, stemming from concerns about Yarlington Lodge. We refer to the email of 19.8.20 from Count Charles de Salis of Yarlington House, and the emailed letter of 17.8.20 from Adam Chichester-Clark of The Rookery, Yarlington (texts of both herewith for reference). We are aware that there was some (minimal) answer to the de Salis email, but despite continuing correspondence Mr Chichester-Clark has had none of his questions answered. Despite the coronavirus etc. difficulties which we are all living with it is hard to believe that the Council cannot go some way towards answering the requests made.

We have instructions to press for these. Please could you therefore immediately (by return, in any event by close of business on 14.12.20) advise “where you are” on the FoI responses. Absent firm confirmation that full answers and relevant documentation will be provided within two weeks (ie. by 23.12.20) we will refer the matter to the Information Commissioner. We would normally go first to your Monitoring Officer, but it appears from your website that the post is vacant. If as an alternative you can confirm if there is an Acting Monitoring Officer, and with contact details, we can contact that person instead.

As for the planning/EIA issue noted above please can we have a substantive response from your Head of Planning within the same time scale (23.12.20). (Matters seem to have been dealt with by several different planning officer, including those at the head of this letter: please could they between them ensure that is done.)

Yours faithfully

Richard Buxton Solicitors
Environmental, Planning & Public Law