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

[ROSM]

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 ?

what LDC have been told is that of the 16 points they have raised - the Treasury solicitor accepts that one of them is valid. That being the error of fact over where the boundary of the built up area ends.

At no point has anybody other than LDC used the word fatally flawed. I think this is called spin! Just like when they use the words 'reasonable request' which of course, with them not wishing the correspondence to be in the public domain, nobody can actually agree of disprove!

As for the costs being met by the Government -I believe that if they had settled for the offer made by the Treasury sols - i.e. quash planning permission - then their costs would have been met.

However, by going to court in order to try and prove that more points were flawed which would result in - quash planning permission and allow a review of the evidence (with representations from all parties) before issuing a new decision - then costs may well be ordered against them for wasting time.

The eagle eyed amongst you will have noticed that even if more points are proven, the end result is the same.

I wonder if LDC know this?

 

[Curious Orange]

Isn't that the whole point? Once the decision is quashed the decision has to be made again from scratch - so all evidence must be reconsidered?

 

[The Large One]

Isn't that the whole point? Once the decision is quashed the decision has to be made again from scratch - so all evidence must be reconsidered?

But Lewes have refused for the decision to be quashed. As I understand it, in refusing to accede to the consent letter, Prescott's original approval letter still stands.

We know that it will go back to Ruth Kelly for consideraition of one point of challenge. How many other points are to be re-considered is down to the judge at the High Court. Lewes believe it will be 16 points to re-consider, the Government say it will be one point.

But as to whether the technicality of Prescott's letter still being valid or not, I am not sure.

 

[BensGrandad]

However, by going to court in order to try and prove that more points were flawed which would result in - quash planning permission and allow a review of the evidence (with representations from all parties) before issuing a new decision - then costs may well be ordered against them for wasting time.

The eagle eyed amongst you will have noticed that even if more points are proven, the end result is the same.

I wonder if LDC know this?

Am I reading and interpreting this correctly what you are saying is that if LDC win the day on the majority of the 16 points that they have raised we would be back to square one nearly as prior to a new decision being made by Ruth Kelly each party will have the opportunity to review the evidence/ their argument. Effectively another full hearing.

 

[Curious Orange]

BG, my understanding is that they would have had that if they'd signed the consent order.

Once quashed a new decision has to be made, and an opportunity to provide further evidence was included in the consent order.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Am I reading and interpreting this correctly what you are saying is that if LDC win the day on the majority of the 16 points that they have raised we would be back to square one nearly as prior to a new decision being made by Ruth Kelly each party will have the opportunity to review the evidence/ their argument. Effectively another full hearing.

My view is that IF, at the High Court hearing, LDC "win the day on the MAJORITY of the 16 points that they have raised" what would happen next is:-

1. the planning permission would be quashed;
2. the matter would be referred back to Ruth Kelly;
3. she would have no choice but to issue a revised decision letter that refused planning permission for Falmer;
4. the Club would have to reconsider the whole issue, identify an alternative site, develop detailed proposals, and submit a new planning application for that site;
5. it would then be up to the local planning authority (the council) to consider that application on its merits.

The Club's financial position is such that this outcome would almost certainly be unaffordable. Stage 4 would cost a fortune.

Fortunately, we have the government's legal advice. Only one of the points raised by LDC is valid. And that can be adequately covered by Ruth Kelly reconsidering the original decision letter and reissuing it with a YES decision.

 

[BensGrandad]

Thank you CO and Lord B I think that I am reading this a little clearer now but I must say to the average layman it is all very confusing. Perhaps that is why they always say get a mechanic to fix your car and a decorator to paint your house every man to his own profession.

 

[Jim in the West]

Thank you CO and Lord B I think that I am reading this a little clearer now but I must say to the average layman it is all very confusing. Perhaps that is why they always say get a mechanic to fix your car and a decorator to paint your house every man to his own profession.

Yes, but unfortunately the apparent complexity is playing into LDC's hands, as it's bl00dy difficult for the average man or woman in Lewes High Street to get their heads round what's happening. I think the Seagulls Party does, however, give an excellent vehicle through which the real arguments and issues can be explained.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

It probably needs to be said as well that IF Lewes win the case at the High Court, there is an option for the government, the football club or the city council to take the matter to the Court of Appeal.

 

[sully]

Fortunately, we have the government's legal advice. Only one of the points raised by LDC is valid. And that can be adequately covered by Ruth Kelly reconsidering the original decision letter and reissuing it with a YES decision.

I really hope your confidence in the Government's legal advice isn't misplaced.

We have had so many disappointments along the way when we seemed to be being told that we were home and dry that I have to reserve a little bit of doubt, still.

Thank goodness the "best thing for the Albion" that was Village Way South wasn't the one we proceeded with, as I can't see how we would have got a yes for that when VWN is obviously so marginal.

 

[portlock seagull]

Is there a "farce factor" card that can be played, like a joker on "it's a knock out" to ensure a final decision? It takes so long everytime to go through the motions that it's now quite clear that no politician (not even Saddam Hussein who clocked up 25 years) can possibly remain in office long enough to oversee this political sham from start to finish. The politician that will make the final decision probably hasn't been born yet. Otherwise there's no end to appeal, counter appeal blah blah blah. After all, we haven't heard NASA's thoughts on our new home yet. Or the Pope's. And then there's Heather Mills, Graham from Blind date and Finger Bob who are all bound to be called as LDC witnesses. You think I'm joking? I'm not.

 

[Caveman]

Is there a "farce factor" card that can be played, like a joker on "it's a knock out" to ensure a final decision? It takes so long everytime to go through the motions that it's now quite clear that no politician (not even Saddam Hussein who clocked up 25 years) can possibly remain in office long enough to oversee this political sham from start to finish. The politician that will make the final decision probably hasn't been born yet. Otherwise there's no end to appeal, counter appeal blah blah blah. After all, we haven't heard NASA's thoughts on our new home yet. Or the Pope's. And then there's Heather Mills, Graham from Blind date and Finger Bob who are all bound to be called as LDC witnesses. You think I'm joking? I'm not.

You may joke.

 

[Screaming J]

It probably needs to be said as well that IF Lewes win the case at the High Court, there is an option for the government, the football club or the city council to take the matter to the Court of Appeal.

True, and then potentially on to the House of Lords. Not unknown for Govt to lose in the High Court but get it overturned in the Appeal Court. Been there, done that!

 

[sully]

My view is that IF, at the High Court hearing, LDC "win the day on the MAJORITY of the 16 points that they have raised" what would happen next is:-

1. the planning permission would be quashed;
2. the matter would be referred back to Ruth Kelly;
3. she would have no choice but to issue a revised decision letter that refused planning permission for Falmer;

I don't share your pessimism in that scenario, LB.

Surely, the majority of LDCs challenges state that Prescott "failed to take account of" certain matters.

I don't see any of the points that would fatally flaw the yes decision if the High Court judge concluded that they had not been considered. Ruth Kelly could just say "Well, I've now considered the implications of PPS7 and conclude that it is outweighed by....."

Or am I just too optimistic?

 

[BensGrandad]

Is it not possible for JP or the government to say "Yes we did take those factors into account but decided that they were not sufficient to refuse permission".

LDC are saying they failed to take them into account how do they know that for sure.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I don't share your pessimism in that scenario, LB.

Surely, the majority of LDCs challenges state that Prescott "failed to take account of" certain matters.

I don't see any of the points that would fatally flaw the yes decision if the High Court judge concluded that they had not been considered. Ruth Kelly could just say "Well, I've now considered the implications of PPS7 and conclude that it is outweighed by....."

Or am I just too optimistic?

You may be right, sully.

Such optimistism as I have doesn't lie is any faith that Ruth Kelly would deal with losing on the 'majority of LDC's challenges' and then simply going through them one by one and dealing with them in the way that you suggest. Losing a planning appeal case on seven or eight separate grounds is usually taken by any planning authority as a message to reverse its decision.

My optimism lies in the Treasury Solicitor's view that all but one of LDC's points are not worth taking up the time of the Court.

 

[Jim in the West]

My view is that IF, at the High Court hearing, LDC "win the day on the MAJORITY of the 16 points that they have raised" what would happen next is:-

1. the planning permission would be quashed;
2. the matter would be referred back to Ruth Kelly;
3. she would have no choice but to issue a revised decision letter that refused planning permission for Falmer;
4. the Club would have to reconsider the whole issue, identify an alternative site, develop detailed proposals, and submit a new planning application for that site;
5. it would then be up to the local planning authority (the council) to consider that application on its merits.

The Club's financial position is such that this outcome would almost certainly be unaffordable. Stage 4 would cost a fortune.

Fortunately, we have the government's legal advice. Only one of the points raised by LDC is valid. And that can be adequately covered by Ruth Kelly reconsidering the original decision letter and reissuing it with a YES decision.

All the above, coupled with the Withdean situation, really does mean that Falmer is the only option (sorry to repeat the obvious). Has it not occurred to LDC that through their tactics they have driven the Albion well beyond the point of no return. Hence, if things go wrong at the High Court then the club really MUST go to the Appeal Court. Given the advice of the Treasury Solicitor, which according to LB is positive, the High Court would have to be pretty perverse to uphold a majority of LDC's objections. Hence, an appeal would presumably stand a decent chance of winning. Ultimately, the risks that LDC are taking with their council tax payers money would mount.

 

[Lawro's Lip]

A small point, but I imagine that the High Court closes in the Summer due to the high risk of plague in London during the summer months.


Good to see British judiciary is up with the times.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

 

[Dave the OAP]

oi...he is bouncing threads


ban him!!!!!!