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

[Rangdo]

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".

So the likelihood is that LDC's solicitors will have told them that if the government really want to allow the stadium then there is nothing that they can do to stop it.
Therefore their only objective can be delay which they may have decided on with or without the solicitor's advice.
This raises two very serious points.
1. LDC know they are going to lose. Good for us.
2. LDC know they are going to lose and are being shamefully reckless with taxpayers money.
If only we could prove that this is what they are doing.

 

[BensGrandad]

So the likelihood is that LDC's solicitors will have told them that if the government really want to allow the stadium then there is nothing that they can do to stop it.
Therefore their only objective can be delay which they may have decided on with or without the solicitor's advice.
This raises two very serious points.
1. LDC know they are going to lose. Good for us.
2. LDC know they are going to lose and are being shamefully reckless with taxpayers money.
If only we could prove that this is what they are doing.

Could the solicitors have advised LDC to carry on, working on the assumption that every law is there to be tested. Also they will be getting well paid.

One often hears of cases where the solicitor decides one way and his client says no I want plead not guilty and the solicitor has to accept this and defend the man in the best possible manner.

This is the case for Cherie Blair who appears to tackle many human rights cases which go against her husband and his government, and she wins a lot of them.

 

[Rangdo]

Could be any of those but the fact that LDC's own solicitors view government planning decisions in this way is the surest sign yet that they know they can't win and are purely trying to drag it out.

 

[vauxhallexile]

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.
. [/B]

So why didn't the Government spot this one coming when they put their decision together?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

So why didn't the Government spot this one coming when they put their decision together?

Good question.

The fact that only part of the stadium site was within the built up area of Brighton and Hove (as defined in the revised edition of the Local Plan) was actually missed by the Inspector at the final Inquiry - not unreasonably, because the revised Local Plan hadn't been printed at the time. It was the Albion who drew his attention to this.

I guess this issue didn't figure very much in the Inspector's Report, but the ODPM probably picked up the Built Up Area Boundary as something that they thought was relevant - and then failed to acquaint themselves fully with the facts.

It's not the important issue that LDC are trying to make out. If it hadn't have been mentioned in Prescott's decision letter, I guess no-one would be saying anything about it now.

There's certainly no evidence that it was the ONE defining consideration that swung the decision.

 

[dougdeep]

I still think we'll get there. It's all or nothing now anyway, we can't afford to stay at Withdean, and we can't just choose another site, as there isn't one.

 

[Curious Orange]

There's certainly no evidence that it was the ONE defining consideration that swung the decision.

The only thing that LDC want is for the conclusions of the second Inquiry into the Falmer application, or rather the Inquiry into the alternative sites, to be ignored.

This is why they keep on repeating that two Inspectors advice has been gone against, they are hoping that two against one wins, whereas the truth of the matter is that planning decisions can only be made on the evidence in its entirity.

The whole reason the Inquiry was re-opened was because those two Inspectors recommendations to the ODPM and B&HCC were based on insufficient evidence with regards to the alternative sites, in light of which they had no choice other than to recommend against, because planning law means you can't build in an AONB if alternative sites are possibly available. The question then became, are those alternative sites mentioned in the original reports actually available and suitable? The answer was a resounding 'No'.

 

[Bish Bosh]

Has anyone else received the supporters' club e-newsletter and read Tim Carder's comments on the upcoming High Court hearing?

Seems like there are a few points in Lewes's submission that might generate debate..height of the roof-reasonable test for alternative sites etc.

Tim's article was thoughtful and measured...but it didn't cheer me up any!!

 

[unnameable]

“We know that the High Court will quash the decision because the Government’s lawyers have admitted it was flawed on one key point, which Mr Prescott then uses repeatedly to justify his decision. But they refused our reasonable request to guarantee that all of the other points in the challenge will be dealt with by the Government when it reconsiders the decision. Anyone who looks objectively at John Prescott’s handling of these applications would have serious misgivings about the reasons behind that refusal to deal with the points in the challenge.

John Prescott’s decision contained a number of fundamental flaws. The High Court will look at each of the points in our challenge and decide whether or not they are justifiable. That means the issues will be sorted out once and for all instead of lingering on. That will be to the benefit of all the parties involved.

The costs for the hearing will be met by the Government, because their lawyers have admitted Mr. Prescott’s decision to be fatally flawed. Neither the Government or Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club have put in any evidence to court to counter the District Council’s challenge. Brighton and Hove City Council put in evidence confirming the mistake made by John Prescott over the Brighton and Hove Local Plan. The Council will continue to press for the earliest possible date for the case to be heard at the High Court."

The above is an extract from Lewes District Council's website (www.lewes.gov.uk).
Having already posted about the matter of costs, and viewing the assertion that the government's lawyers have admitted Mr Prescott's decision to be "fatally flawed" as too ludicrous to waste time writing about, I would like to draw people's attention to the first line of the extract.
On Thursday, I phoned the LDC press office. I told them that for a public body to say that it "knows" the outcome of a hearing before it has been heard is presumptuous, arrogant and irresponsible. I was told that the wording would be discussed with officials and councillors and reconsidered.
Well, as you will find, the wording has not been changed. I doubt that it will be.

 

[sully]

Not just that line. What about the assumption about costs being met by the Government? How dare they tell a high court judge how to act?

 

[ROSM]

it is a main tenant of english law that if you are offered a settlement 'out of court' and you choose to reject it and proceed to court - the court can take the view that you have wasted their time and order costs against you.

This is usually the case if you would win through court the same or less than you were offered out of court. However, even if you win more, then the court may still consider that you wasted their time in arguing for the extra.

In this scenario, the Treasury solicitor has offered to quash the planning permission whilst accepting one point was an error (I am still not convinced it was as key and item as lewes are claiming as having read the decision letter, he hardly refers back to it).

Now by going to court, if the judge doesn't consider that this error was material, or that this was the only error - then I reckon it is very likely that Lewes will incur everybody's costs. Remember here that the Government, Brighton and Hove council and the club will be gunning for them!

However, even if they get a judge to admit that other points were flawed - it will still result in the quashing of the permission and a new decision being taken. This is exactly what they have on offer now and will again prompt all the defendents (dont forget that Lewes didn't have to name the club and council as defendents - the fact they have will come to haunt them) to look for costs to cover the wasted time and effort.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Not just that line. What about the assumption about costs being met by the Government? How dare they tell a high court judge how to act?

And how VERY dare they tell lies like this one?

"they refused our reasonable request to guarantee that all of the other points in the challenge will be dealt with by the Government when it reconsiders the decision"

 

[The Auditor]

And how VERY dare they tell lies like this one?

"they refused our reasonable request to guarantee that all of the other points in the challenge will be dealt with by the Government when it reconsiders the decision"

hopefully this lie will be one of the first things drawn to the judges attention and costs awarded against them for wasting everyone time...

 

[B.W.]

And how VERY dare they tell lies like this one?

"they refused our reasonable request to guarantee that all of the other points in the challenge will be dealt with by the Government when it reconsiders the decision"

Yes, I thought that as well... I am sure that I had read somewhere that the Govt. had offered to look at all the points LDC had raised... if LDC are lying, then this must surely count against them in court... surely, all the Govt. have to do is provide the court with the documentary evidence that they did offer to look at all the points...

 

[Curious Orange]

Hmmm, it would be extremely interesting to see exactly what the Treasury Solicitors DID say to LDC, and to see exactly what LDC's "reasonable" demands were. But apparently LDC aren't comfortable for that information to be in the public domain.

 

[B.W.]

LDC stated publicly that they wanted all their points considered, and 2 Jags to take no part in the decision going forward...

 

[Tricky Dicky]

And how VERY dare they tell lies like this one?

"they refused our reasonable request to guarantee that all of the other points in the challenge will be dealt with by the Government when it reconsiders the decision"

Ed - I bow to your superior knowledge and you've already answered, but by adding the line ...

"The costs for the hearing will be met by the Government, because their lawyers have admitted Mr. Prescott’s decision to be fatally flawed"

LDC seem to be presenting this as fact rather than opinion. Is there any basis for this statement at all ?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Hmmm, it would be extremely interesting to see exactly what the Treasury Solicitors DID say to LDC, and to see exactly what LDC's "reasonable" demands were. But apparently LDC aren't comfortable for that information to be in the public domain.

It's very handy for them that they choose to meet behind closed doors, isn't it?

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Is it not time for the Brighton and Hove MPs to deplore these actions and the underhand tactics keeping all this information quiet? Haven't B&H gone a bit quiet over this?




I, also see that council tax increases have begun...I know that is the same for most places but....
http://www.theargus.co.uk/the_argus/news_extra/LETTERS12.html

 

[Caveman]

Expect more rises in Lewes when this whole sorry stadium saga comes to an end.