Lewes Dc Goes To High Court!!!!!! Important

[Lord Bracknell]

I may have missed something, but nobody has commented on the fact that LDC, on their website, are claiming that the government are liable to fund the hearing in the High Court because they conceded that the ruling on Falmer contained an error of fact.
Incredibly, then, LDC has engineered a situation in which someone else is bound to bear the cost of the hearing that they alone requested.

The High Court hearing is completely unnecessary because the government has already conceded the point about the Built Up Area in the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

I would imagine that when LDC lose on all their other points (which they will, since the top government lawyers have pored over them very carefully), all the parties who have had to spend time and money preparing for the Court case will be bunging in claims that LDC should meet their legal costs in full.

If LDC think there is no risk that this will happen, they are being VERY STUPID INDEED.

 

[Jim in the West]

With respect to historic costs, I am told (by Norman Baker, no less) that the Government "will meet all the District Council's costs to date" as the ODPM admitted that it made an error in it's decision. I am not sure what the sums involved are, and whether the "all" in NB's phrase above actually does indeed mean ALL.

 

[BensGrandad]

Well, you are.

You are not comparing like with like. It's ANOTHER petty dig at the board because what you mean is 'if this club had some real money, they could palm the council off...'.

The City Council fully backs the stadium. They APPROVED the stadium. However, if you think you could have palmed off an entire government department, a neighbouring district authority and several green lobby groups, tell us how it's done, would you?

This was not as you say a knock at DK or anybody else because of their lack of money it is a fact that an abundance of it opens doors.

The ones to be 'paid off' where the main instigators of the objections. Corruption I know but it happens. Hiow many of them are there 3 who lead the rest?

I had a pub in a Town where the main building contractor who got most of the council work happened to own a house in the Carribean that the Chairman of the committee that decided on tenders happened to use for a month a year every year for his holidays and he also bought a 1 year old Mercedes each year for £1 previous owner said builder. It happens.

 

[BensGrandad]

Lord B;

I am sure that I read somewhere, but can't find it, that the passage shown below that is on your posts appears on the website of the lawyers advising LDC.

“If there is one principle of planning law more firmly settled than any other it is that matters of planning judgment are within the exclusive province of the ... Secretary of State” - House of Lords Judgement in the case of Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment


If that is the case I cannot understand how these same lawyers can expect to beat the government.

Can you explain any of the logic of this assumption.

 

[perseus]

Lord B;

I am sure that I read somewhere, but can't find it, that the passage shown below that is on your posts appears on the website of the lawyers advising LDC.

?If there is one principle of planning law more firmly settled than any other it is that matters of planning judgment are within the exclusive province of the ... Secretary of State? - House of Lords Judgement in the case of Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment


If that is the case I cannot understand how these same lawyers can expect to beat the government.

Can you explain any of the logic of this assumption.

That's easy. They are not even attempting to win. They are attempting to delay the process. They do not have to think up reasoned logical arguments and do not attempt to. They are like rats gnawing away at the planning process.

You may think it is an unethical way to behave.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Lord B;

I am sure that I read somewhere, but can't find it, that the passage shown below that is on your posts appears on the website of the lawyers advising LDC.

“If there is one principle of planning law more firmly settled than any other it is that matters of planning judgment are within the exclusive province of the ... Secretary of State” - House of Lords Judgement in the case of Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment


If that is the case I cannot understand how these same lawyers can expect to beat the government.

Can you explain any of the logic of this assumption.

It's a mystery to me as well, BG.

For anyone who is interested in reading the full article, it's this one:-

The Limits of Section 288 Proceedings

The author, Colin Ricciardiello, is a solicitor and a Partner in the firm of Sharpe Pritchard, who are representing LDC in the Falmer case.

The gist of the article is in the second paragraph:-

"A recent Court of Appeal decision in Hammersmith Properties Ltd –v- First Secretary of State (2005) PLSCS 204 illustrates again the limits of Section 288 proceedings in that they do not allow the Court to impose its own judgment on the planning merits in place of the decision challenged".

 

[Screaming J]

"A recent Court of Appeal decision in Hammersmith Properties Ltd –v- First Secretary of State (2005) PLSCS 204 illustrates again the limits of Section 288 proceedings in that they do not allow the Court to impose its own judgment on the planning merits in place of the decision challenged".

Well that just about buggers Lewes DC, I would think!! Pity we have to wait a year to get this confirmed!

 

[portlock seagull]

I am speaking to you from the portacabin at the withdean stadium.

This morning the Albion Ambassador in Brighton handed Lewes District Council a final note stating that unless we heard from them by 11.00 a.m. that they were prepared at once to withdraw their lies about our community stadium plans at Falmer, a state of war would exist between us.

I have to tell you that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this club is at war with Lewes District Council.

"If we build it, they will come....."

Come on the Albion shop - get printing this t-shirt for us to buy please! Afterall, the new shirt won't be out until Xmas

 

[jfs]

I am sorry but that is rediculous also.....Withdean is only for the comitted? was Gillingham only for the committed then? I understand people not going to Withdean out of principle, however not going because you get wet? You wuss.
...
To liken me to Bellotti is both insulting and down right rude...you dont even know me.

OK, I'll apologise for the Bellotti remark, it's about the worst thing one could call anyone. It just seemed that you were taking pot shots at innocent parties when the real enemy is clear to all.

On Withdean (ditto Gillingham), it just doesn't appeal to casual fans. And a proportion of casual fans evolve into regulars, they bring their kids and the kids get hooked. I have mates that support the Albion but not enough to sit in sullen silence in the pissing cold every other week like me (and you no doubt). The club needs casual fans to have a future, it can't survive on a hard core (else it wouldn't be losing a million pounds every year as it is now).

 

[sparkie]

That's easy. They are not even attempting to win. They are attempting to delay the process. They do not have to think up reasoned logical arguments and do not attempt to. They are like rats gnawing away at the planning process.

You may think it is an unethical way to behave.

This is probably the case. I imagine that LDC lawyers have told LDC that they stand no chance, but as the client, they are entitled to proceed anyway.

This is why the legal advice LDC are receiving is being kept confidential, and all meetings are behind closed doors.

 

[eastlondonseagull]

Regarding Archer, he never applied for planning permission at the Goldstone. The story of events goes (I think) something like this.

Around 1991, the Albion (before Archer) applied to Hove Borough Council for planning permission to build a retail park on the Goldstone site. The idea was to be able to increase the value of the land to borrow against it.

Hove Borough Council initially refused, saying it would adversely affect town centre trading - something they wanted to increase. However, on appeal, the Albion won, mainly because Hove BC were advised that their reasoning was unlawful.

However, and this is the important point, no safeguards were put in place by the council to stipulate that a retail park could be built until the Albion had moved to a new home. The Albion gave a (for want of a better term) 'gentlemen's agreement' not to move until they had a new place. But nothing was put in as a condition of planning permission by the council. Permission was, however, granted for a new retail park.

Roll forward four years, and a new chairman and a new board, seeing that he was sitting on the potential goldmine a planning permission, and not giving a shit about the Albion, promptly asset-stripped the club, sold the ground at one quarter of its real value for a quick sale, scuppered a move to groundshare with Portsmouth, and f***ed us up the arse.

Think that sums it up perfectly.

Have just spent the last half hour wading through this thread, and I'm still confused about what's going on. How anyone keeps abreast of the situation is beyond me - I fear that High Court judge is gonna feel the same.

Has anyone started planning a march / protest / plan of action against LDC (other than the Seagulls Party)? Albion fans have saved this club once, we MUST do it again.

 

[eastlondonseagull]

I am speaking to you from the portacabin at the withdean stadium.

This morning the Albion Ambassador in Brighton handed Lewes District Council a final note stating that unless we heard from them by 11.00 a.m. that they were prepared at once to withdraw their lies about our community stadium plans at Falmer, a state of war would exist between us.

I have to tell you that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this club is at war with Lewes District Council.

"If we build it, they will come....."

Come on the Albion shop - get printing this t-shirt for us to buy please! Afterall, the new shirt won't be out until Xmas

 

[eastlondonseagull]

With respect to historic costs, I am told (by Norman Baker, no less) that the Government "will meet all the District Council's costs to date" as the ODPM admitted that it made an error in it's decision. I am not sure what the sums involved are, and whether the "all" in NB's phrase above actually does indeed mean ALL.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

OK, I'll apologise for the Bellotti remark, it's about the worst thing one could call anyone. It just seemed that you were taking pot shots at innocent parties when the real enemy is clear to all.

On Withdean (ditto Gillingham), it just doesn't appeal to casual fans. And a proportion of casual fans evolve into regulars, they bring their kids and the kids get hooked. I have mates that support the Albion but not enough to sit in sullen silence in the pissing cold every other week like me (and you no doubt). The club needs casual fans to have a future, it can't survive on a hard core (else it wouldn't be losing a million pounds every year as it is now).

apologies accepted mate.

I wasnt having a pop at anyone really. I was just expressing my frustration in the way I tend to do, ie open my big mouth

 

[B.W.]

Question for LB or similar wise person...

What are the next steps in the process now LDC have made their decision to go to the High Court?...

Does Ruth first have to put the "Yes" back in place via another (amended) decision letter with the offending text removed, then the High Court schedule is set?

OR Do we just wait for the High Court to schedule the date?...

Thank you...

BW

 

[sully]

Question for LB or similar wise person...

What are the next steps in the process now LDC have made their decision to go to the High Court?...

Does Ruth first have to put the "Yes" back in place via another (amended) decision letter with the offending text removed, then the High Court schedule is set?

OR Do we just wait for the High Court to schedule the date?...

Thank you...

BW

The latter.

LDC have refused to let Ruth Kelly correct the original decision. That is basically what their latest decision amounts to.

 

[B.W.]

The latter.

LDC have refused to let Ruth Kelly correct the original decision. That is basically what their latest decision amounts to.

Thank you again... and we all know how "fast" those boys and girls at the high court will swing into action...

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Question for LB or similar wise person...

What are the next steps in the process now LDC have made their decision to go to the High Court?...

Does Ruth first have to put the "Yes" back in place via another (amended) decision letter with the offending text removed, then the High Court schedule is set?

OR Do we just wait for the High Court to schedule the date?...

Thank you...

BW

Given that LDC have decided not to agree to the Consent Order, there is nothing for Ruth Kelly to do at this stage, other than get her department to prepare for the High Court hearing.

As to when the date might be, there is a provision for something called a "case management meeting" at which the parties to the Case can argue about when it should be heard. That process can be initiated by any of the parties.

It's possible that one party might already have made the first move.

 

[Caveman]

The latter.

LDC have refused to let Ruth Kelly correct the original decision. That is basically what their latest decision amounts to.

Can't see Ruth Kelly being too happy about that. If we look a bit deeper its obviously clear its all about time delaying tactics. I'm amazed that at this level the Council can even play a pawn against the Goverment.

 

[3gulls]

[
GENTLEMEN (AND LADIES), WE ARE AT WAR!!! [/B]

So, nothing new there then!

This whole thing is a sick joke!