Falmer Parish Council reveal who is funding the Judicial Review Application

[Gwylan]

Quite, TL1 - a lot of this is speculation. I'm not even sure whether the ODPM can appeal or not, let alone how costs are divvied up.

Why are there no lawyers on NSC - we've got just about every other profession.

 

[Curious Orange]

Lets just all agree that £60k looks a tad optomistic as a maximum cost for a full blown Judicial Review, and that the rest of the the FPC statement reveals them and, by association, LDC for the hypocrites they are.

 

[Simster]

Would they need to prove that they have the funds to pay *all* court costs before being able to take it to trial? Or would the court just tell them to cover the costs and if you can't pay it, we'll take your houses ta very much?

 

[GUNTER]

Cutress is loaded, they could have paid that themselves.

 

[The Large One]

Stick to talking about BURGERS, TLO.

I am. I am insisting that the good burghers of Lewes rise up against their despotic council and stop them reckelessly destroying their town.

 

[Easy 10]

Nobody likes a smart arse ALAN

 

[The Large One]

Nobody likes a smart arse ALAN

But you like my arse DAVID.

 

[Staly]

Tut. I posted the Falmer link yesterday, and everyone ignored me.... "sniff"

 

[Curious Orange]

Going back to the question in hand, I reckon that, given the FPC statement, LDC et al will argue that the ODPM have gone against the rules in PPS7. Here is the section I reckon they'll pin there hopes on:

Nationally designated areas

21. Nationally designated areas comprising National Parks, the Broads, the New Forest Heritage Area and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), have been confirmed by the Government as having the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape and countryside should therefore be given great weight in planning policies and development control decisions in these areas. The conservation of wildlife and the cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas. They are a specific purpose for National Parks, where they should also be given great weight in planning policies and development control decisions. As well as reflecting these priorities, planning policies in LDDs and where appropriate, RSS, should also support suitably located and designed development necessary to facilitate the economic and social well-being of these designated areas and their communities, including the provision of adequate housing to meet identified local needs.

22. Major developments should not take place in these designated areas, except in exceptional circumstances. This policy includes major development proposals that raise issues of national significance. Because of the serious impact that major developments may have on these areas of natural beauty, and taking account of the recreational opportunities that they provide, applications for all such developments should be subject to the most rigorous examination. Major development proposals should be demonstrated to be in the public interest before being allowed to proceed. Consideration of such applications should therefore include an assessment of:

(i) the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy;

(ii) the cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and

(iii) any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.

23. Planning authorities should ensure that any planning permission granted for major developments in these designated areas should be carried out to high environmental standards through the application of appropriate conditions where necessary.

It seems clear to me that the initial Inquiry did not contain enough evidence regarding 22(ii), and that the re-opened Inquiry filled this gap. What still amazes me is the first Inspector felt able to speculate on alternative sites given that he clearly didn't have enough evidence to do so - as the second report shows.

 

[The Large One]

Prescott covered those specific points in his letter.

Para 22 (i) Prescott said that permitting the stadium would benefit the local economy and the urban re-generation. Refusing would be detrimental.

(ii) That's what the entire second Inquiry was about.

(iii) Prescott acknowledged that there would be a detrimental affect on the landscape, but that was moderated by the design of the stadium and its immediate environment (Tree planting etc)

Para 23. See 22 (iii) above.

Prescott's letter expresses his opinion that the Albion have done enough in mitigation (the design and planning) to warrant planning approval. That, in itself, as I understand it, is not grounds to challenge in the High Court.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

A lot of the contentious points come down to matters of opinion.

The final nail in the LDC case is that the role of the First Secretary of State in the planning process is to have the FINAL opinion.

That cannot be challenged.

 

[Curious Orange]

Exactly my thinking TLO, so they must be going to argue that the economic regeneration of Moulsecoomb is not in the national interest. Unless they reckon they've come up with something else even more ultra relevant.

Anyway, I'm going to spend some time actually reading the planning policies, something I doubt that many of our opponents will bother to do.

They can be found here if anyone else is interested:

Planning Policies

 

[perseus]

This is law now.

I have been on this trip on another matter, appealing to the House of Lords. (The Government backed down before it went to Court.)

I had to get the Statute books out and I ignored all the guidelines. I concentrated on the exact wording in the law passed in Parliament.

I am not going to put ideas in their head, but they will probably come up with something that is NOT mentioned in the ODPM letter at all.

The precedent in Pembrokeshire might not apply at all because of the special circumstances of that case.

 

[perseus]

A lot of the contentious points come down to matters of opinion.

The final nail in the LDC case is that the role of the First Secretary of State in the planning process is to have the FINAL opinion.

That cannot be challenged.

Lord Bracknell: can you confirm that there is no appeal to the House of Lords?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Perhaps I'm being a tad vindictive, but it would almost be worth any review dragging out for months and months, just to hoik up the legal bills, thus teaching the self-serving village snobs a lesson or two.

It's not as though we're going to start building until this time next year is it, so as long as the decision goes the right way, who cares if it takes until September? Hopefully all these pretentious arses will be stung with massive costs.

Incidentally, assuming they get laughed out of court, is there any other course of action the pathetic weasels of LDC and FPC might take?

I mean, could they appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, for example, or the United Nations, or the InterGalactic Anti Building Alliance ??

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Falmer Parish Council's lawyer does have personal experience of taking a planning decision to the European Court.

It was the Arsenal Stadium case (he advised and represented ISCA).

They lost.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Lord Bracknell: can you confirm that there is no appeal to the House of Lords?

As in the Pembokeshire National Park case, the appellant needs to persuade a House of Lords Committee that the case raises points of law that merit the attention of the Law Lords.

The Council For National Parks failed to do that - and a massive Snow Dome and Holiday Village will be built in the National Park - because of the economic benefits it will bring to a depressed local economy.

 

[Kent Seagull]

If LDC win the JR, does Prescott have to re-open the inquiry or just re-consider the evidence of the last one?

It's pretty obvious to me that Prescott won't be changing his mind based on the evidence of the last inquiry and LDC don't have any new evidence that wasn't heard last time round, so why re-open the PI? What's the fecking point?

All LDC are doing is wasting money in the hope of causing a further delay. If the club are still pressing on with fund raising, contracts etc, it won't actually mnake any difference to the project completion date

Surely when they apply for JR, the judge will see this ploy for what it is and reject it out of hand.

 

[somerset]

Re: Re: Falmer Parish Council reveal who is funding the Judicial Review Application

From http://www.angelfire.com/space/falmer/LatestNews.htm

We need to raise this money before we go to court. This will probably not be before June next year.

What the outcome of the High Court case, the Case itself or payment of it should they lose??

Have you been drinking mate?..... didn't catch a word of that.

 

[London Irish]

Going back to the question in hand, I reckon that, given the FPC statement, LDC et al will argue that the ODPM have gone against the rules in PPS7.

On the contrary, what they have to show is that, in some way, the ODPM failed to fully address this policy or overlooked other important factors. Prescott's decsion letter addressed all these factors. You can't just get a J Review because you don't like the answer, you have to show that something major was overlooked or there was some other flaw in the procedure. Prescott gave his reasons for setting aside the AONB policy.

I still haven't a clue what the basis of Lewes' appeal is. Do they even know themselves?