Why Bargate Homes makes me think of an episode of Law & Order SVU

“Is this how you like it?”1

The Bargate Feedback Website mentions opportunities for public feedback and encourages residents to participate in the consultation process.

However, the effectiveness of this engagement depends on how well residents are informed about the full context. They should ensure that all relevant information is provided so that residents can give informed feedback.

Both the feedback invite letter and the website are clear cases of omission in disclosure, as they fail to mention that the proposed development is outside the settlement boundaries and not included in the local development plan. This lack of transparency is significant because it does not provide residents with the full context needed to assess the proposal.

They fail to inform residents that the application might be relying on the “tilted balance” principle, which is a critical aspect of the planning process. This principle changes the default position in favour of granting planning permission and shifts the burden of evidence for objections to successfully oppose the proposal.

Additionally, the format of their expansion is designed so that none of the piecemeal phases of their masterplan meet the 150-plus dwelling threshold, thus avoiding mandatory EIA requirements. This highlights a loophole in the EHDC planning application process, which is affected by a “one size fits all” fallacy and lacks effective mechanisms to address cumulative impact situations. This approach fits the characteristics of a creeping strategy, involving a methodical and incremental approach to achieving long-term objectives without attracting significant opposition or attention.

This is like taking multiple blood donations exceeding the safe limit for a child donor, but doing so without medical (EIA) supervision. Without an EIA, there is no proper care to understand the impact of these piecemeal developments on the community. Without data collation, the effects observed by residents can be easily disregarded as there is no evidence. This likely saves costs for the developers but comes at the expense of comprehensive oversight and the community’s well-being.

Think about allocating land for housing development as if it were a blood donation (Blood Donation = Allocating Land for Housing Development).

Safety Rules

Blood DonationLand ‘Donation’
💡 NO children

💡 NO pregnant women

💡 NO people weighing less than 50 kg		💡 NO land outside the village Settlement Boundaries

💡 NO land that is not included in the Local Development Plan
MAXIMUM amount of blood donation per person – 1 pint every 56 daysMAXIMUM SIZE is defined by its relative insignificance to the donor:

💡NO significant risk to the environment that cannot be adequately mitigated (Environmental Impact)

💡 NO significant strain on local infrastructure such as roads, schools, healthcare facilities, and utilities (Infrastructure Capacity)

💡 NO significant alteration to the character of the village, e.g., overcrowding (Community Impact)

💡 NO significant risk to public health and safety, such as increased pollution, noise, or hazards (Health and Safety)

etc;

Exceptions in Standard Protocol for Safe Donation

Blood DonationLand ‘Donation’
A child can donate blood to a sibling, based on a determination that the impact on the donor’s wellbeing will not be jeopardised and any side effects can be effectively mitigated.Land that is NOT within the village Settlement Boundaries and is NOT included in the Local Development Plan can be ‘donated’ in case of significant benefits, on the basis that the impact can be effectively contained by mitigation measures.
(Economic, Social or Environmental Benefits Benefits)

Blood Donation in Crisis Situation / Land ‘Donation’
under Titled Balance (Paragraph 11)

Blood DonationLand ‘Donation’

Situation when, to address the critical need for blood, all people are accepted as donors by default.		Under the “tilted balance,” planning permission should be granted by default.
Applicable, for example, during a war due to the massive need for blood for injured soldiers.

Or, during a pandemic when the steady supply of blood donations is interrupted, as the process rules were not designed to function in such a context.		Applicable if the quantity of land that has been identified as suitable and available for housing development over a five-year period does not meet the target set to meet the identified housing needs of the community (the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites).

Or, if relevant granting permission policies are out-of-date, such as an EHDC Local Development Plan that does not reflect recent development needs.
The default acceptance of any donors in such situations is to minimise the issue at hand.
Thus, default acceptance replaces conditional acceptances for blood donation, and it is only “turned off” if it is proven that the adverse impacts of donation would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
The default permission settings can only be “turned off” if it is proven that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
These exceptions are usually carefully managed to balance the urgent need for blood with the safety of the donors and recipients.This assessment is made against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. Thus, it is vital that the case-by-case permission process is carefully managed by a fully functional planning application mechanism, capable of providing accurate determinations.
Donated blood should be from healthy donors who are free from certain diseases and have appropriate haemoglobin levels.The site must be suitable for housing development, having access to amenities and infrastructure capacity, while considering the maintenance of ecological balance and supporting biodiversity conservation.

Cumulative amount of donations and type of donor

Blood DonationLand ‘Donation’
Donating over 1 pint of blood every 56 days should require medical supervision. It is understood that donating above that amount has significant effects on the donor.
General principles state that projects involving the construction of more than 150 dwellings require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as they have significant effects on the locality.
Donating two times 0.51 pint of blood during that period should also trigger the need for medical supervision.Constructing two sets of 76 dwellings in the same locality should also trigger an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

The significance yet differs based on the donor type; for instance, a person weighing 30 kg should only donate 210-315 ml.


Similarly, the significance varies for rural settings.

References

  1. Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, S1 E10 – Closure ↩︎