Falmer Parish Council reveal who is funding the Judicial Review Application

[perseus]

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?

I expect Lewes DC have been told about it, whether they know or understand is a different matter, because they did not think it up.

Trying to figure out what it is is like working out an opponents chess move in advance: often a headache.

If it is a vexatious complaint (or on fact, rather than law) the Judge will throw it out.

I have a strong inclination to think it is on a point of law and it will be down to the small print and interpretation of it.

The actual stadium plan might not even figure in the legal bit. It could be just be about building the coach park in the AONB bit.

Then the ODPM will revise the Planning Permission and then they will ask for a second Judicial Review ...

 

[Curious Orange]

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?

Well, I doubt this little snippet from the BBC will help much then:

Lewes council announced plans to proceed with the legal challenge last month.

A spokesman said: "The council has never argued that the team should not have a new stadium but believes there are alternative sites available."

"John Prescott's decision is to be challenged in the High Court because it conflicts with his own government's planning guidance designed to protect Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty against this sort of development.

"A number of important planning issues were either overlooked, or were not properly considered."

The first bit is definitely referring to PPS7 and that looks to this layman to have been fully covered in the ODPM's letter, its the "overlooked, or were not properly considered" bit I'm more interested in.

 

[Jim in the West]

The legal action, if we lose, will cost £60000. The Society of Sussex Downsmen and South Downs Conservation board have both pledged £5000. We are paying half the costs along with Lewes District Council. This means we need to find £25,000. We have already raised £15,000, and so need to find another £10,000. We need to raise this money before we go to court. This will probably not be before June next year. The strange thing about these appeals is that if we win, and I think we will, the government have to pay our costs. We pay nothing. If we lose we pay their costs.

I think the good news here is that it's clear that raising the funds will not be that easy. Surely in reality the whole JR would cost a lot more than £60k? If so, it seems that finding the money to go the whole hog could be a serious problem for FPC/LDC. Can we not get some legal expert to do a proper estimate of the likely costs, and get the figure in the public domain - hopefully this would make some supporters think again?

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

They mention that £10k still needs to be raised and that the JR probably wont be heard until June 2006, which leads me to thinking they are using delaying tactics in the hope of killing our club. However when they then lose does this mean the Falmer residents get hit with a double whammy as the council tax will rise by x% (LDC) and also the parish precept will rise by x% (FPC) ?. Previous posts about the NIMBY'S losing their homes and moving to Moulscoomb made me but they will complain about the area not being posh enough and end up being rehoused in Whitehawk which is slightly (?) more exclusive.

 

[fozzie's headband]

Building work on the stadium isn't due to start until October/November 2006 anyway so if a JR is held next June then their delaying tactics aren't going to work.

Martin Perry has already said that it's business as usual and full steam ahead as far as the stadium is concerned.

 

[The Large One]

The Albion (or another interested party) can ask for the case to be expedited. In a nutshell, that means that the case is heard much sooner. Don't be surprised if this Judicial Review hearing is held in March/April.

 

[Hadlee]

The Albion (or another interested party) can ask for the case to be expedited. In a nutshell, that means that the case is heard much sooner. Don't be surprised if this Judicial Review hearing is held in March/April.

When has ANYTHING relating to enquiries or court cases about the Falmer application been done quickly ??

June is about the right time

 

[sparkie]

When has ANYTHING relating to enquiries or court cases about the Falmer application been done quickly ??

June is about the right time

Except no doubt the LDC lawyers will be on holiday then...

 

[West Hoathly Seagull]

Previous posts about the NIMBY'S losing their homes and moving to Moulscoomb made me but they will complain about the area not being posh enough and end up being rehoused in Whitehawk which is slightly (?) more exclusive.

Surely as they live in Lewes District it will be LDC who have to rehouse them? In which case they would probably end up in Landport or South Malling

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Surely as they live in Lewes District it will be LDC who have to rehouse them? In which case they would probably end up in Landport or South Malling

LDC wont have any money left in the coffers after losing the JR ! If they dont get rehoused by Brighton & Hove City council they can always be given a caravan to live in which means they can then move to Croydon.

 

[BensGrandad]

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

I have just read AOL Sport and there is a part in which Tim Carder is quoted as saying that if LDC win, the judges cannot force JP to change his mind they have no authority to order him to, they can only ask him to reconsider and he can say NO I WONT end of story. Is this correct?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I have just read AOL Sport and there is a part in which Tim Carder is quoted as saying that if LDC win, the judges cannot force JP to change his mind they have no authority to order him to, they can only ask him to reconsider and he can say NO I WONT end of story. Is this correct?

I don't think Prescott can REFUSE to reconsider. But, after reconsidering, he could come to the same conclusion - and confirm the grant of planning permission.

Just say (for the sake of argument) that Lewes DC persuaded the Court that Prescott's decision letter had completely failed to take into account the fact that the stadium might have an impact on the new student residences that will be built next to Falmer Station. The Court might then order Prescott to reconsider the report of the second Inspector ON THAT POINT ALONE.

Prescott would then re-read the Inspector's report (including the evidence submitted on this particular matter) and discover that the new residences will have double glazing. He would then be entitled to conclude that his opinion hadn't changed and, even taking into account this additional consideration, his decision was to grant planning permission.

 

[Bwian]

This has probably been covered many times before but after a bottle of very nice Rioja I can't remember....Let's suppose the Nimbys fail on this challenge-can they then choose another thing they think might get them the decision they're looking for or is it "You've had your one chance, you've lost now fugg off and fix the flood defences"?

Seriously-how many goes do they get at this?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

This has probably been covered many times before but after a bottle of very nice Rioja I can't remember....Let's suppose the Nimbys fail on this challenge-can they then choose another thing they think might get them the decision they're looking for or is it "You've had your one chance, you've lost now fugg off and fix the flood defences"?

Seriously-how many goes do they get at this?

Just the one chance. They have to submit the outline of their case by next Friday.

 

[London Irish]

Just the one chance. They have to submit the outline of their case by next Friday.

There is a difference to that National Parks case in Wales then, where they kept going through all the appeal stages in English law?

 

[clapham_gull]

There is a difference to that National Parks case in Wales then, where they kept going through all the appeal stages in English law?

High Court Judge Justice Jacks ruled in December 2004, after a three-day judicial review, that the decision was lawful.

In June this year, at the Court of Appeal in Swansea, Lord Justices Maurice Kay, Latham and Jacob all agreed with Judge Justice Jacks' judgement.

The CNP then petitioned the House of Lords, but on Friday, an appeal committee refused a final attempt to overturn the decision, opening the way for the scheme to go ahead.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

There is a difference to that National Parks case in Wales then, where they kept going through all the appeal stages in English law?

No.

Bwian's question was about introducing new issues into the argument and making a fresh appeal.

In the Pembrokeshire case, the NIMBYs lost at the first hearing, then appealed against the Court's decision and lost again at the Appeal Court. When they tried appealing to the House of Lords, they were refused permission for a third hearing on the grounds that there wasn't a significant point of law at issue. All three hearings were about the same issue.

 

[Bwian]

Bloody Nora-if this drags on like that case....I'll go mad I tells ya-mad!

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Bloody Nora-if this drags on like that case....I'll go mad I tells ya-mad!

It won't, if Lewes's case is - as they say it is - about the protection of the AONB from any development.

The Pembrokeshire case is a legal precedent that the Court will have to take into consideration (particularly since it got as far as three Appeal Court judges).

 

[clapham_gull]

At each three stages Judicial Review, Court of Appeal and lastly House of Lords I understand you have to make an "application for leave" - ie firstly each body has to make the decision whether there is a case to answer.

If at any of those stage the application ISNT granted, does that then make your case dead in the water ?

Essentially, if the judge says no to Lewes at the APPLICATION for Judicial Review - its over ?

With the Welsh case, they were granted permission for the first two "reviews" to take place - but lost.

At the final stage The House of Lords refused to even look at it.