To gather the information together I have made multiple Freedom of Information requests to Weymouth Town Council (WTC), I have engaged with the Council and made a constructive proposal to readmit the views of these 573 people and have made formal complaint that this has not been done.  There are 100's of pages of information and in the tabs above you can see some of the key elements. It's not possible to include all the detail here but please contact if there is anything you would like to discuss.  

 

Yes, this is long but there is little point in making allegations without giving the reader the full benefit of the data surrounding it.  I put this forward as a catalyst for debate.  To criticise is much easier than to  create, so go ahead.  Let me stress (given the laws of libel!) that I have tried to reproduce, as much as possible, information which is in the public domain and can be accessed by everyone given enough time and commitment. Where I am commenting, this is my personal opinion so I encourage everyone to assimilate the facts and make their own judgement about what is going on.  You can agree or disagree with my opinion.  Let me say at the outset that I am apolitical.  I have spent decades of my life outside UK and was not permitted to vote during that time.  I voted Conservative in 2019, not because of that cheat and liar Boris Johnson, but to reflect my unhappiness at the prospect of Corbyn.  I will be honest to say that I voted in a local election for the first time in my life recently and that was based on local and not national matters.  In reaching my decision I first corresponded with the prospective Liberal Democrat candidate.  He wrote he also had questions about the WNP but I didn't see that he was verbalising them and probably had to toe the Liberal Democrat party line on Preston matters.  He was soundly defeated by local people standing up for local issues.

 

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

If you are not happy, complain to WTC and tell them why.  Just be aware that there is no appeal against a WTC complaint decision.  In my case as a victim I was told that I could only have my complaint "reviewed" by my perpetrator........  Are you one of the 573 disenfranchised people? Make your voice heard.  Don't complain later that nothing was done!  Need more information: send a Freedom of Information request to WTC.  They will provide it within 20 working days.

 

To remind ourselves, this is what the government says is the purpose of these Plans:

“Neighbourhood planning is a new way for communities to have a say in the future of the places where they live and work. It gives you the power to produce a plan with real legal weight that directs development in your local area. It helps you:

• choose where you want new homes, shops and offices to be built
• have your say on what those new buildings should look like
• grant planning permission for the new buildings you want to see go ahead”

 

This is what Weymouth Town Council (WTC) says about public consultation:

“we will consult on the vision and policies for our Future.” (6 January 2021)"

“WTC decided that the Plan should be developed by a delegated Steering Group. (SG) through a process of community engagement.”

"The Neighbourhood Plan is trying to get as many residents as possible involved"

 

The SG is chaired by Cllr David Northam who writes: “most importantly, I’d like to thank the residents of the Weymouth area for supporting our various engagement events, and responding to our surveys that will help shape a plan that is for all of us.”  He is also quoted as saying: "take the survey so that we can capture your valuable input". Capture it then discard it!

 

One can argue whether WTC have made enough efforts to make public the WNP and, if they have, whether they have taken into account the feedback from their constituents. I have seen that in June and July 2022, 3 drop in events were held across Weymouth and a paltry 34 people turned up out of a population of around 80,000!  There has been no significant improvement in communication since and each effort by WTC results in desultory response.  WTC say they have paid for a distribution to every household - funny I have received nothing; the WTC say they are at the vagaries of Royal Mail.  Yet the political parties do activist leafletting which truly does produce results, congratulations to these people who keep democracy alive whatever their political persuasion.  In the on-line consultation there were 136 responses to the question: “would you support a major development with mostly affordable housing on a green field site”.  67% said “no”. So let’s develop what WTC now say is their mandate to push this through against Democracy.  This 2^nd Engagement publishes a typical resident comment: “Stop building on green field sites.  Use what brown field sites there are.  Why don’t you listen to what we have to say?” 

 

So, when 573 residents make a comment as earnestly asked for by WTC, should they not be heard instead of being discarded because their bottom-up, majority view does not accord with the top-down aspirations of the Council?  More about the interaction between WTC and developers below: developers put significant speculative sums into buying land but need the WNP to change designated land use to accord with their profit motive.  This what Bellway Homes wrote on 14 August 2023: “achieving early delivery via the neighbourhood planning process.” If we look for the motive for WTC to override the opinions of residents with the WNP then this statement makes it clear that the WNP has to be used as the method of re-zoning land agreed as Green Space.  There are also Preston residents who feel that the WNP has just become far too political and that the majority Liberal Democrat council is dumping all their social housing in a Conservative area of the town.  500 houses already under construction in Littlemoor, the next batch of 570 in Preston (480 off Budmouth/Brackendown/Wyke Oliver and 90 at Old Tip)

 

In my case it only came to my attention when a flyer was pushed through my letterbox in January 2023 headed: “Urgent message from your local councillors” (see tab "Leaflets" above).  The title was “In Touch Conservatives”  This gave me to believe that a further 500 houses were to be built in Preston and I attended the public meeting held on 25^th January.  The speakers there certainly brought me up to speed on the WNP and drew my attention to the fact that consultations were to be closed just 6 days later.  The meeting was encouraged to take part in the consultation before it closed; the consultation was in the form of a series of 10 questions posed.   The results of this “3^rd Engagement” were published in August 2023.  Question 3 related to the “protection of valuable open land and green spaces”; residents of Littlemoor and Preston will recall that WTC had repeatedly said in the past that the two locations would not be allowed to merge together and would be kept apart by Green Spaces.  This was a published policy of WTC known as the Lorton Valley Corridor.  The published policy also said: “Draft Policy WNP10: Green Gaps The areas (shown on Map tbd) are fundamental to retaining and protecting the special character and setting of local settlement areas and preventing coalescence”.

 

The land behind Brackendown Avenue now earmarked for Social Housing sits within the exclusion zone of the Lodmoor SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest).  The response of 596 replies to this question was that 73% reaffirmed that Green Spaces should be protected from development. 

Question 7 asked respondents whether sites within the existing Defined Development Boundary should be allocated for residential development.  Of the 573 responses only 35% were in favour of this.  Question 8 asked respondents whether sites outside of the existing Defined Development Boundary (DBB) should be protected from residential development.  Of the 573 responses 18% were in favour, 64% were not and 18% didn’t know.  We can infer that this public meeting of 25 January 2023 was pivotal to local interest. Figures from WTC show that there were 137 comments in the months leading up to 23^rd January and 436 in the few days after that.

 

What took place between January and August? 

A further flyer came through my letterbox entitled “Spring 2023 Focus on Preston Liberal Democrats”.  Below a picture of Cllr Harris, Liberal Democrat leader of WTC, it was twice written (in bold type for emphasis) that the estimate for 500 homes in Preston was “highly inaccurate”.  As of today’s date the latest figure proposed in the WNP is 570 homes, an increase  of 14%, which leads me to still believe that 500 was a near enough estimate and that it was right and proper to draw the public’s attention to it when WTC had not.  The minutes of the SG from 13 February 2023 shows: “David advised the group that he was going to write to the Planning department about how the impact that the false communication has had on the results, as he was concerned that the number of negative comments would be taken into account.  Phil did make a point that although we cannot demonstrate that there was an impact on the false communication, we can allude to it having potentially influenced results”.  The Chairman of the Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan is concerned that negative comments would be taken into account!  Indeed!  People making comment when requested to do by WTC is labelled as “interference” in the process.

 

At some stage, the Liberal Democrat councillors tried to have the Conservative councillors from Preston disciplined  for what Cllr Harris calls “lies”.

 

The minutes of the SG from 13 March 2023 reveal: “Penny raised a ques on/concern about has the plan development to date whether it has had a fair representation from the whole community as she feels that this probably hasn’t happened and there are sections that have not had an input.  David said that this is something we are aware of and that we have tried to make engagement as accessible as we can so far. We will keep looking at this issue and try and do everything we can to engage as many people as possible from all sections of the community. We can only control creating the opportunity to respond and make it as accessible as possible."  Clearly, there are concerns about fair representation from the whole community.  The SG control the opportunity to respond and make it accessible and then they disregard uncomfortable answers that they don’t want to hear.

 

On 26^th February 2023 Cllr Northam wrote to Jonathan Mair, who is Director of Legal & Democratic  (Monitoring Officer) on the Senior Leadership Team at Dorset Council, asking for advice about Questions 7 and 8.  On 31^st March Mr Mair responded in a considered way and this letter does need to be read (see tab above Dorset Council Democratic Director).  Cllr Harris wrote back to Mr Mair on 31March 2023 that: “publication contains clear lies” “500 houses in Preston….a complete fabrication”. “Is the making up of figures acceptable by councillors?”.   On 1 April 2023 Cllr Harris wrote to Colin Marsh (deputy chair of SG) that “the last paragraph is the crunch”.  Mr Marsh responded: “You know whatthey say about protecting your own…The options as I see it are to keep the correspondence with Jonathan Mair going, get the chair of WTC at full council to remind WTC councillors of their conduct and the need to stick to factual evidence where available, go to the Ombudsman (which could be an even bigger distraction and become very divisive as this whole business ‘mushrooms’)”.

 

In my opinion this shows that the whole matter had become very political and a spat between the majority Liberal Democrats on WTC and the Conservative councillors representing Preston residents.  This just happens to be very unfortunate for the Preston residents.  Mr Mair supported that view and no disciplinary action was taken against the Preston councillors accused by Cllr Harris of lying.  The insinuation from Mr Marsh is that a senior employee of Dorset Council (Conservative controlled) would act to protect Conservative councillors in Weymouth;  maybe if he even thinks that, he should not write it down!  Indeed, this "whole business is mushrooming".

 

On 8 April 2023 Cllr Northam, (Chairman of the SG), wrote to Cllr Harris: “This is weird what is the point of a Democratic officer? Colin Marsh has written on behalf of SG questioning the basis of the decision not to investigate”.  The full thread of this correspondence can be seen under the tab (Dorset Council Democratic Director) above.  I have written to Mr Mair twice (see tab above) but have had no response.

 

In April 2023 a draft of the WNP was published on the WTC website and suddenly Site 6 and Site 7 had appeared in Preston for homes to be built outside of the DDB.  But in the same document on page 47 it was confirmed that the Green Space between Littlemoor and Preston was an “Important Open Gap”.

 

The SG minutes from 15 May 2023 shows: “Code of Conduct/Consultation Statement Update:  David still to write to Locality to ask for guidance.  We have not published our 3rd engagement, want to include in the plan how the responses might have been distorted.  Sandie questioned whether we could have a covering document which explains the status of how the responses and why we paused. David explained that yes, we will once we have a response from Locality and felt uncomfortable about sending out anything before the response from Locality."  

 

The minutes go on: “At the last Full Council meeting on 10/05/2023 Lucy Hamilton nominated Pete Dickenson to join the Steering Group.  David was unaware that Lucy was going to do this, and the reasons why are unknown.    David informed them that the Council cannot decide this as per the Terms of Reference the decision lies with the SG members.  David had sent an email to Pete Dickenson asking for a resume and providing his background and why he wishes to join the SG.   Chat re showcase   David / Rob   ITEM DISCUSSION ACTION BY WHOM  Phil responded that he was not happy and surprised that Lucy had put Pete forward, which others agreed – also questioned whether this meant that Lucy was stepping down as TOR delegate that only 4 councillors would be on the SG, to ensure not Council led.  David advised that any formal complaints to be sent to him directly.  Post Meeting Note: Pete Dickinson has since advised ‘After a week of thought and refection I now consider that it would not be appropriate, beneficial or indeed  in the best interest of my residents to join the steering group"

 

There is a registered charity called Locality which offers advice to those communities setting up Neighbourhood Plans. They say: “We are the national membership network supporting community organisations to be strong and successful”.  When Cllr Northam did not seem to get the response from Mr Mair that he was hoping for, he wrote to Locality on 7 June 2023 for further advice.  The correspondence is shown in the tab.  Their reply on 8 June should be read, especially paragraph 3.  It was suggested that: “provide clarity to the community and to clear up any misunderstanding”.  They gave a number of illustrations how this could be done and then said: “After this, you might also want to resurvey individuals to gauge their views on the sites”. They concluded: “I appreciate that the above may not necessarily lead to a change in views, but you can express clearly your rationale for actioning or not actioning feedback in the consultation statement.  However, ultimately it is the community that vote in the referendum, so it is advisable to try to clear any perceived misunderstandings up before you get into further formal stages of the process.”

 

The action of the SG was to accept contributions from the developers because this would help promote the developer's aims. It was in the form of display boards to promote further drop-in consultations during August.  For Preston this meant a Friday afternoon before a bank holiday weekend and an advert in the Dorset Echo which appeared 2-3 days beforehand.  Apart from this, some publicity was made on “social media”.  I, for one, knew nothing about this.  I am not on “social media” and I do not buy the Echo.  It appears that the SG believe they have a mandate just because of these consultations.  Now that they have imposed policy on us from this dismal turnout they say that only in the future will they do a leaflet drop to every household in Weymouth.  Too little, too late.  So let us examine this “mandate”.  61 people attended 5 locations of which just 9 people attended the Preston Village Hall.  You can read the percentage figures on which the “mandate” is based in the 4^th engagement feedback but in short policy was formed by 33 inputs from these 61 people and is a complete travesty of democracy.  To this day 573 people from January 2023 have had their comments excluded and 33 comments are chosen to form policy.

 

I wrote to Cllr Northam directly and personally to suggest that these 573 people should be re-canvassed for their January 2023 views in the light of what happened subsequently.  At that time I did not know that Locality had made the same recommendation to him.  This has been turned down both by Cllr Northam and WTC formally.  Why should these views continue to be excluded when Cllr Harris clearly “misspoke” or “lied” when he said the figure of 500 homes was “highly inaccurate” and that the Preston councillors were liars? 

 

The figures speak for themselves.  570 homes with 50% social content and of that 50%, 60% should be rental, gives 171.  This is not what we mean by “affordable” housing which is the cloak that WTC have used for their plans.  This is a dense concentration of 144 houses for the most deprived people marooned high up in Preston with no facilities, no transport.  The September2023 minutes from SG are worth reproducing here:

“4) Land off Budmouth Avenue Site:

9 ha for residential development of approximately 250 dwellings with 50% Affordable Homes, and the remaining.

Discussion around risk of developers relegating (sic) on their agreement to provide 50% AH. We might be setting precedence if giving development to outside DB. But we can tighten up the scope and add clauses which will make it difficult for them to renege on promises.

CM not keen at all to agree this site, as with the Wyke Oliver Farm development and possibly the north section of Old Tip would not leave a lot of green open space. Also in report from George Venning says not viable but once table tweaked it makes it viable. David responded saying that there is justification for 50% in George’s conclusions.

CM concerned that the SEA has a lot of red areas, transport being key as most residents are reliant on motor vehicles for transport and there is no public transport which will impact hugely on the roads if having to use personal vehicles. This could be addressed by highlighting the needs for public transport? There is also no community centre – which again we could put into the specifications.

Agreed -this site was agreed by a majority."

 

Most informed people are aware that developers often do not finally carry out what they have promised on a development in terms of facilities and by then it is usually too late.  Equally, there is an incentive for councils to give planning permission these days because developers are obliged to pay a sizeable contribution to council coffers.  This can lead to unhealthy reasons for councils to want new development above and beyond their published motives.  We see above that now the deputy SG chairman is having doubts and there is already talk of the developers reneging on their promises, this all long before planning application has even been made.  Nevertheless, the “majority” decision to push this through will prevail and local democracy will be denied.

 

You’ll see just how difficult it is for Joe Citizen to get to the bottom of these issues.  The amount of information written down for disclosure through Freedom of Information is just one snapshot.  WTC gave me a document entitled: “How to work with landowners and the development industry” as a way to show it is quite proper for WTC to be engaged in relationships with developers.  This document does go on to say:

“If you do arrange meetings with developers….consider having a third party present in order to ensure independence and impartiality”.

“Keep a note of any meetings and calls; and make clear at the outset that discussions are not binding”

“Ensure the community are aware of what you are doing and why”

“Make sure that the wider community is aware of any meetings with developers or landowners and report back on the outcomes of any meetings” 

Make of this what you will but when I asked WTC for the papertrail minutes behind all the video meetings, phone calls and physical meetings, their answer is that there is nothing.  Anyone surprised?  Does Joe feel he is being taken for a fool?

 

What do we know about the interaction between WTC and the proposed developers of these sites at Preston for 570 new homes.  It is usual for developers to take options from landholders and for them only to buy the land once they receive planning permission.  In this case Bellway Homes have bought the field at the eastern end of the Budmouth/Brackendown site outright, they have bought the access from a bungalow in Budmouth and they sent in a drilling rig over several days in March 2022 to undertake soil analysis.  The only impediment was that the land was designated as Green Space as outlined above.   

 

We know that Cllr Northam had a relationship with Bellway’s advisers long before this controversy over Preston came about.  Brett Spiller is a director of Chapman Lily Planning Ltd, who are advising Bellway.  Cllr Northam knew Mr Spiller at least as far back as July 2022 with Lovell Homes. What has not been publicised (as above) is that Bellway had a deputation to WTC on 3^rd May 2023 where it was noted: “Bellway Homes are pleased to see that whole plan viability testing will take place later this year.  This is crucial if the objectives of the plan are to be realised”.  More about viability testing below.

 

On 14 August 2023 Bellway wrote: “achieving early delivery via the neighbourhood planning process”

 

As a way of explaining Bellway’s decision to actually lash out the cash to buy the land on Site 6 (Budmouth/Brackendown), Chapman Lily Planning wrote to the SG on 30^th January 2023: “By way of background, site 6 was identified as a prospective housing allocation (WEY 13) in the review of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan, but this review was abandoned in favour of a new Dorset Local Plan.  Nonetheless, its previous identification should engender confidence in its suitability for shortlisting.  The Dorset Local Plan was supposed to be adopted in 2023 but the timeframe has been pushed back and adoption is now anticipated in 2026.  Notwithstanding, Weymouth’s top tierstatus in the settlement hierarchy, the revised geography of the emerging Local Plan has diluted the focus on Weymouth with only one strategic housing site being identified for allocation……It is important to note that true affordable housing exception sites, almost by definition, do not need to be allocated in a Neighbourhood Plan.  The real value of a Neighbourhood Plan is identifying sites that might not otherwise be brought forward and giving encouragement and guidance to potential developers on the type and form of development that the local community would like to see”. 

 

Somewhat contrary, Chapman Lily then wrote on 25^th September 2023: “WNP24 Budmouth Avenue. This site has come forward through the Weymouth Calll for Sites (CFS) as site WNP02 and is listed in the Dorset Council’s 2021 SHLAA as LA/WEY/013.  It is not allocated in the current WDW&P PL (2015). The site was identified a preferred site for housing in the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Review in 2018.  The site was not proposed as an option.  The site was not proposed as a residential site in the 2021 draft Dorset LP.  The site is currently outside the Defined Development Boundary defined in the WDW&P LP.  Consideration was given to this coming forward as an exception site with a 100% affordable housing but this is judged to be unlikely commercially viable”. 

 

Chapman Lily went on to summarise: “The adopted local plan identifies it as having geological and local landscape interest, as well as forming part of an important gap.  However, these designations are not proposed to be carried forward into the emerging Local Plan….Although access could be taken from Budmouth Avenue or the residential streets south of the site, these are all long and narrow cud-de-sacs which are unlikely to have capacity to serve development of the whole site, and it is unlikely that the proposed capacity of 250 dwellings could be achieved without significant highways improvements.”

 

Further: “The site was included in the 3^rd public engagement along with other sites outside the Defined Development Boundary.  However, misleading information about the potential developments was circulated which shifted the initial mixed response to the survey to one against the development.  The Steering Group decided to discount these results and conduct further public engagement…..A number of Registered Providers are interested in taking on the Social Housing management.  This dialogue has enabled a commitment to 50% Affordable Homes to be made.  The main site access will be from Budmouth Avenue with a secondary access from Brackendown Avenue.  Preliminary discussions have taken place with the Highways Department……The site was included specifically in the 4^th Public Engagement.  The site outline was for development of 230 homes with 50% Affordable Homes, land to the west of the site being ceded to LVNP; enhancement of biodiversity, provision of additional allotments and inclusion of amenities. Of the 33 responses made 16 were in favour of development and 5 were against. The reasons for favouring the site were the plan for 50% Affordable Homes, ceding of land to the LVNP and the extension to the allotments. The reasons against the site were concerns about the increased traffic, distrust of developers delivering their promises, and the lack of easy access to public transport…..50% of the Housing shall be for Affordable Housing of which 70% will be for rent”.

 

This would now put the number of Social Houses for rent up from 171 to 200 units.

 

Preston Councillors not being on the SG of the WNP

I have asked our councillors to comment about this so that the residents of Preston can understand why there is no councillor representing them on the SG when Preston stands to be the most severely affected and afflicted area of the town under the WNP.  At this time I have not received a written response from them.  We can see in the public domain:

1. Minutes of SG on 12 July 2021: “DN emphasises the need for the document to be highly confidential.”
2. Minutes of SG on 12 July 2021: “Importance of using Microsoft Teams in between meetings for communication”
3. Minutes of SG 20 June 2022: “ Declaration of Interest A non-disclosure undertaking form was circulated to all SG members. This protects sensitive data on the Call for Sites information being assessed and reported on by AECOM. Anyone choosing not to sign will not have access to the site information until it has been released to the public by the SG and WTC in September 2022. All forms returned to DN who will ensure data sharing is sensitive to the nondisclosure undertaking.
4. Minutes of SG 18 July 2022: “Homes-Good membership of group, significant sensitivity over the ‘prospect list’ of potential sites. DN has asked for any remaining Declaration of Interest, Non-Disclosure forms to be returned; any member choosing not to do so, will not be privy to the site information until it’s in the public realm. CM declined to sign the DoI until Town Councillors are informed.

5. Minutes of SG 15 May 2023: “At the last Full Council meeting on 10/05/2023 Lucy Hamilton nominated Pete Dickenson to join the Steering Group. David was unaware that Lucy was going to do this, and the reasons why are unknown. David informed them that the Council cannot decide this as per the Terms of Reference the decision lies with the SG members.  David had sent an email to Pete Dickenson asking for a resume and providing his background and why he wishes to join the SG.   Chat re showcase   David / Rob   ITEM DISCUSSION ACTION BY WHOM  Phil responded that he was not happy and surprised that Lucy had put Pete forward, which others agreed – also questioned whether this meant that Lucy was stepping down as TOR delegate that only 4 councillors would be on the SG, to ensure not Council led.  David advised that any formal complaints to be sent to him directly.  Post Meeting Note: Pete Dickinson has since advised ‘After a week of thought and refection I now consider that it would not be appropriate, beneficial or indeed  in the best interest of my residents to join the steering group"

 

It is sometimes done that a “gagging order” or confidentiality agreement is put in place temporarily while commercially sensitive discussions are held, usually between multiple competitive commercial organisations.   Some people may not want to have been bound by this, refused to sign and have therefore been excluded.  We have seen above that the WTC Liberal Democrat Councillors wanted to have the Conservative councillors disciplined over the January 2023 flyer but that Dorset Council did not agree with this.  That possibly made relationships so poor that they have broken down entirely for political reasons.  In my opinion this is all to the detriment of Preston residents to have no voice through their councillors on the SG and for at least 573 voices to have been suppressed because it does not accord with what WTC are trying to impose in a top-down way.

 

I will continue to update this site as more information is received through Freedom of Information.  For example, we have seen that the construction site chosen did not pass an independent study carried out and that those results were to be “tweaked”. We need to understand what “tweaks” have been made to the data to try and make it more presentable…….Another Freedom of Information response from WTC is hoped for in order to see how an independent report has been "tweaked" by the SG to achieve their aims.