C.L.A.S.H. was established by local residents to support Paul Dimishky in fundraising for the judicial review case against Somerset Council for the safety through the rural settlement of Henstridge.

Paul Dimishky has been part of the A357 Group fighting the building of a 2 x HOUSING DEVELOPMENTs on safety grounds since 2017.

The HM Planning Inspector gave their approval only with specific conditions that the developer provides adequate pedestrian safety through the rural settlement.

The development sites are located on a strategic “A” road, constantly used by heavy goods vehicles. The A357 road, our village High Street, lacks pavement and seriously ENDANGERS THE LIVES of our many elderly, disabled and young residents each time they leave their homes.

Our only way now, to safeguard present and future residents, is to take this to the High Court and commence a Judicial Review Case against Somerset Council’s decision to discharge these conditions. Paul Dimishky cannot do this alone and he is asking for your help in raising funds to pay for the court case.

Our opposition is not to new houses, Building houses should not put our lives at risk – pedestrian safety is a basic HUMAN RIGHT.

Update 1st July 2025 by Paul Dimishky on Judicial Review (JR) at Henstridge – Townsend Green

The JR is about safety in Henstridge High Street and it is that which is the main ground for the claim. This results from a “condition precedent” attached to the planning consent when it was originally passed on appeal which provided for a traffic scheme in the high street and a pavement for pedestrian safety. The scheme had to be approved prior to the commencement of development.

No such workable scheme was submitted, but the developers commenced work anyway with the sole objective of keeping the planning permission current. Having illegally commenced the development they then applied for a Certificate of Lawfulness,  (CLEUD) to make the illegal start legal despite having not satisfied the condition set by the inspector.

The latest very good news is that Barratts/ David Wilson Homes have now conceded the Judicial review. This means that we have won the case, as both Defendant and Interested Party have backed down and agreed not to defend.

 In consequence, the original case is withdrawn. Although extremely good news and a vindication of the action taken, as some would guess, that isn’t the end of the story.

During the course of May 2025, Barratts applied for and Somerset Council approved a further CLEUD (A certificate of Lawfulness, referred to now as CLEUD 3). This was a very surprising development in view of the fact that the Judicial Review was live, having been given permission, and we still have a KC’s opinion that the development was approved outside of the law.

 As a result, we now have a second Judicial Review JR2. This is almost identical to the first case, but this time CLEUD 3 has been correctly issued from a procedural perspective. This means that the hearing will now focus entirely on the main ground, the condition precedent. (Pedestrian Safety) That is also good news as this will be the knockout blow.

The downside of this second case is that I am now starting again. Although in theory the costs of first case should be paid by Somerset Council and Barratts, as they have both conceded, it is entirely possible that I will not recover full costs (it is dependent on a decision by the judge) and I am now faced with costs for the second hearing. Much of the argument is the same, so projected costs are reduced, but I am still looking at an estimate of £42,000 in total for that second hearing. We will be able to carry forward our original funding, but I still do have a significant funding gap as overall total costs have increased. I therefore still need considerable financial support to fight the case.

It is also likely that the date of hearing will be put back, possibly now November or December of this year.

I believe there are two stories here, one the local fight in Henstridge, but more important is the national issue being the complete failure of Somerset Council to stop a development even when totally inappropriate and dangerous. This, I am sure is being replicated throughout the land.

When Barratts applied for CLEUD 3, the council are legally obliged to respond within a specified timescale, but that does not mean they have to “Rubber Stamp” everything the developer wants. They can and should sometimes say NO. This is a prime example of the failure of Councils to stand up to large developers for fear of legal action and damages. Currently they just seem to be an extension of Barratts themselves working with complete bias towards the developer.

The latest statement from Barratts/David Wilson Homes is yet further confirmation of the close collusion between the two and bias shown by Council.

A spokesman for David Wilson Homes said: “We remain committed to delivering much-needed, high-quality homes in Henstridge and ensuring all planning conditions are properly addressed. The planning permission for the Townsend Green site remains valid and we will be working with Somerset Council to defend our application from the second judicial review.” (Source: Somerset Live)

It is very clear that the  “arm’s-length” relationship between developer and council does not exist. Councils are coerced to follow instruction from developers despite their own policy.

Firstly, an extract from the National Planning Framework:

115. Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.
116. Within this context, applications for development should:
117. 1. a)  give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements, both within the scheme and with neighbouring areas; and second – so far as possible – to facilitating access to high quality public transport, with layouts that maximise the catchment area for bus or other public transport services, and appropriate facilities that encourage public transport use;

Or Somerset Councils own Policy on Safety

POLICY TA5: TRANSPORT IMPACT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT

All new development shall be required to address its own transport implications and shall be designed to maximise the potential for sustainable transport through:

1. Safeguarding existing and new transport infrastructure, which is important to an efficient and sustainable transport network from development that would prejudice their transport use;
2. Securing inclusive, safe and convenient access on foot, cycle, and by public and private transport that addresses the needs of all;

What is the point of Councils employing large planning departments, developing the National Planning Framework, their own safety policies if they are subsequently completely ignored? All of that costs the taxpayer millions of pounds. It is a scandal which needs to be exposed. I would also remind you that our democratically elected councillors have twice rejected this application, only to be over-ruled by council officers on “legal grounds”.