A fight to stop a 250-home estate will continue after town councillors agreed to launch a judicial review against a planning inspector’s ruling.
Proposals for farmland off Ham Road in Faversham were given the go-ahead by the government official following an appeal by developers in what residents have dubbed a “David vs Goliath” battle.
Opponents were so delighted when Gladman Developments’ initial application was refused by Swale Borough Council (SBC) last year that they launched a street party to celebrate.
But the government’s Planning Inspectorate granted permission earlier this month, much to the fury of long-critical residents and politicians who lobbied to block the new builds.
Now, Faversham Town Council has voted to continue legal action against the Ham Farm homes, pledging to fund £18,000 to fight its case.
The authority has agreed to launch a judicial review, claiming the decision by the planning inspector was not reached lawfully.
Town mayor Cllr Josh Rowlands (Lib Dem) told KentOnline the council has been informed it has “two really strong grounds” to launch the review but acknowledged the risk to public funds.
A packed town council meeting on Monday debated the proposal over whether to begin proceedings for a stage one judicial review.
Cllr Rowlands said: “I can’t go into the details of what our case will be based around at the moment until the papers are put in, but the advice that we’ve got is that we have two really strong grounds to move forward with this,” he said.
“We’re very much here to fight the cause, to make sure the housing we see in Faversham is sustainable, and it is something that residents want to see.
“We don’t really need four or five-bedroom houses, we need affordability and social housing.
“We were as shocked as everybody else when the inspector came back with their decision to grant the appeal.
“But the council is committed to fighting for residents and fighting for what they believe in.
“At the moment, we are seeing more and more developments and it is a concern.”
Campaigners, who formed a group called Save Ham Farm, celebrated last June when the proposals were dismissed, organising a community street party to mark the occasion.
Placards bearing slogans like “wildlife not houses” and “keep Ham Farm green” were dotted around the town.
They had argued the scheme would damage wildlife habitats, destroy historic walking routes and worsen congestion and flooding in the area.
The initial application was rejected by SBC on the grounds it could have led to flooding, and it failed to provide measures to mitigate its impact on local services.
But Gladman appealed and the Planning Inspectorate sided with the developer.
The inspector noted the scheme would cause “moderate harm to the intrinsic character, beauty and tranquillity of the countryside” but concluded the need for housing outweighed the downsides.
“There is a shortfall in affordable homes in the borough and this is increasing,” the inspector’s report said.
“There would be short-term benefits to the economy from the construction of the proposal. There would also be long-term benefits from expenditure in the local area by the future residents of the development.
“Overall, and particularly because of the importance and weight to be applied to the proposed housing, the adverse impacts of the proposal would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.”
Cllr Rowlands argued this ruling had completely undermined the town council’s neighbourhood plan, which had been overwhelmingly supported by residents.
He said: “They completely ignored the hard work of Faversham Town Council and the community to get a neighbourhood plan through, and it was very much like a community-driven process of five plus years.
“That took a lot of time and money to get through.”
While a timeline for the legal tussle is yet to be confirmed, it could take years to resolve with the town council aware it could need £100,000 for its war chest.
External funding opportunities with other interested parties or residents will be considered.
But Labour councillors have raised concerns about the way the town council’s decision was reached and potential costs to taxpayers.
A statement issued after the meeting acknowledged the group’s support for the town’s neighbourhood plan and ongoing opposition to the Ham Farm scheme over traffic issues.
But members abstained in the vote at Monday’s meeting.
The statement said: “We advocated for an open and transparent discussion in public on next steps.
‘The advice that we’ve got is that we have two really strong grounds to move forward with this…’
“It was deeply disappointing when the chairman [Cllr Rowlands] imposed limits on what could be discussed, preventing full clarity on the issues at hand.
“In the public session we were not given a clear explanation of the grounds for the proposed judicial review, nor were we informed of its likelihood of success.
“What was clear, however, was the potentially significant financial liability that could fall on the town council – and ultimately local taxpayers – if the review were unsuccessful.
“In light of this, we urged that we hear from the planning expert before any decision was made.
“It is essential to be fully informed and to have all professional advice on the table when considering such a serious financial commitment.
“Unfortunately, the Liberal Democrat group moved forward with a vote, committing the council to significant expenditure before the planning consultant had been invited to outline the limited professional advice supplied so far and before we’d had a chance to ask the planning consultant questions.”
Ham Farm is one of several controversial proposals in and around Faversham, with thousands of homes earmarked.
It faces plans for 2,500 homes at Brenley Corner from Prince William’s Duchy of Cornwall estate and 1,800 homes at Winterbourne Fields in Dunkirk.
Last year, Swale Borough Council suggested Faversham could shoulder the bulk of new housing across the district, prompting accusations the town was being “sacrificed” to meet government targets.
