Councillor Chris Jarman, Isle of Wight councillor for Totland and Colwell has said outcome of the Court of Appeal hearing on West Acre Park planning permission for 473 dwellings on the site of Westridge Farm “determined that the planning permission was hence unlawful”.
The barristers’ chambers representing the group of Islander, Greenfields (IOW) Ltd said the earlier decision of the High Court had been overturned following the two-day hearing last week. They said the Lord Justices found,
“That the grant of planning permission for 473 dwellings, a café, doctors’ surgery and other associated infrastructure at Westridge Acre Park on the Isle of Wight was unlawful on grounds of a failure to publish the section 106 planning obligation.”
IWC: A fuller statement upon conclusion of this process
A spokesperson for Isle of Wight council said,
“The council respects the Court of Appeal’s decision regarding the appeal brought by Greenfields (IOW) Ltd. The appeal was successful on Ground 1 only, which argued that the grant of planning permission was unlawful due to the procedural failure to publish the section 106 agreement before granting planning permission.
“The appeals on all other grounds were dismissed. In dismissing appeals on all other grounds, the Court of Appeal provided a very welcome clarification that the council lawfully resolved to grant planning permission at the meeting of the Planning Committee on 25 April 2023, the resolution remaining unaffected by the court’s finding on Ground 1.
“Although the judgment has been handed down, the appeal has been adjourned to allow the parties to provide short written submissions. This effectively gives both parties the opportunity to suggest the next steps to the Judges.
“At the appropriate time, following the conclusion of this process, the council will make a fuller statement.”
Jarman: I was the only IW Councillor present
Councillor Jarman shared the news on social media this morning, stating,
“Since 2021 I, together with Councillor Peter Spink, Dave Adams, Michael Lilley and others, believed there were significant procedural errors in the manner of determination of the Westridge Planning Application.
“For the four years since, and with huge donations of funds towards the legal costs by residents, myself and other Councillors, the case made its way through the court systems until it was accepted by the Court of Appeal. I attended all of those hearings in person and was the only IW Councillor present in London for the final round last week.”
He added,
“Today, the judgement has been issued by the Court of Appeal that there was failure to follow legal process in regard to the publication for public comment and Councillor consideration of the draft section 106 agreements – whereby prospective developers must provide a contribution to infrastructure.
“The Court of Appeal determined that the planning permission was hence UNLAWFUL.
“This will have significant implications for similar cases on IW and indeed nationally where such legal process failures have been made.
“An exhaustive process, but solid vindication for all those that have supported this Herculean effort over the last four years!”
The provisional judgement
The previous judgement on Judicial Review in August 2023 found in favour of the Isle of Wight council.
This most recent appeal was heard by Lord Justices, Lewis and Singh.
The provisional conclusion of that hearing stated:
In my provisional view, the consequences of allowing the appeal on ground 1 only is that the decision of 4 August 2023 issuing planning permission is unlawful and should be quashed.
The validity of the resolution of 25 April 2023 approving the grant of planning permission is not, however, affected by the failure to comply with article 40(3)(b)
Bias dismissed
There had been claims against Councillor Geoff Brodie of bias. He had been chairing the 27th July 2021 planning committee when the original planning permission decision was made.
Lord Justices Lewis and Singh dismissed that allegation.
Duty of Candour
Justice Lord Singh chose to add “add a few words of my own about the duty of candour and cooperation”. He spoke (in paragraph 105 of the determination below) of how the respondent’s explanation of how certain figures were relied on, could only,
“Be found in different places, for example an email dated 11 February 2022 which was exhibited to David Long’s witness statement. We were also taken to particular passages in what are otherwise long and detailed reports about a variety of subject matters: see paragraphs 75-76 in the judgment of Lewis LJ. This approach is to be deprecated in judicial review proceedings.”
He said,
The Court should (in proper evidence, i.e. in a witness statement) be given a full, accurate and clear explanation of the decision-making process used by the public authority concerned and should not have to depend upon submissions by advocates nor should it have to piece together a number of different documents in order to understand what happened.
Lilley: It was a David and Goliath battle
Councillor Michael Lilley for Ryde Appley and Elmfield commented,
“I have supported my residents for many years in their fight against the planning application to build 473 houses on historic farmland. They solidly believed that there were flaws in the process and were courageous in challenging IW Council.
“It was a David and Goliath battle and a huge mountain to climb for ordinary citizens. The system is stacked heavily in favour of landowners, developers, local authorities and those who can pay for legal teams easily. It costs huge amounts of money to seek judicial review and justice for lay people but my residents showed it was possible through crowdfunding with over 500 residents contributing.
“The sadness is that residents had to pay to prove IW Council had acted unlawfully. It is a historic victory for ordinary people who just want fairness and transparency.
“They and I believed and believe that this proposed development did not/does not have the road infrastructure to sustain it and that this important nature corridor was not suitable for housing.”
Brodie: Delighted I was cleared of entirely false allegation of bias
In response to the decision of the Appeal Court judges handed down yesterday, Councillor Geoff Brodie said,
“Although the Appeal Court judges allowed this appeal on just Ground 1 (failure to publish the Section 106 agreement before issuing the formal planning approval), they also ruled that the Planning Committee LAWFULLY resolved to grant planning permission for West Acre Park. They have yet to decide whether to quash the formal planning approval of 4 August 2023 as a result of the appeal, so no one should jump to conclusions just yet.
“Personally I am delighted that once again the judges have dismissed the other three Grounds of the appeal and have CLEARED me of the entirely false allegation of bias on this planning application (Ground 3). No doubt an apology won’t be forthcoming from those who made this allegation.
“Also that the allegation that my ruling from the Planning Committee chair that Cllr Price could not take part at the original committee meeting (in accordance with the Council’s code of practice) was a procedural error, was in fact academic for this appeal (Ground 4). These two rulings are the same as were adjudged by the High Court judge last August.”
You can read the full determination below, or the report on the FTB Chambers website.
You can read more about the case in OnTheWight’s Westridge Farm archive.
Article edit
9.03am 17th Apr 2025 – ‘Provisional’ added
9.30am 17th Apr 2025 – ML comment added
1.16pm 17th Apr 2025 – IWC comment added
10.05am 19th Apr 2025 – GB comment added
