Lewes District Council Cabinet Meeting on Thursday

[Curious Orange]

Sorry guys. They'll get a Judicial Review. They'll say it was irrational to overrule the first reports.

Erm, what's irrational about deciding that there isn't enough evidence in a report to make a decision?

 

[Easy 10]

From what I've read it would seem that the only argument that they might have is that maybe the economic regeneration of deprived wards is not in the national interest

But the economic regeneration of deprived wards IS part of the governments overall strategy on a national level. The regeneration of one area of East Brighton will obviously not have any significance on a national level when taken as an isolated case, but taken as part of the Governments overall planning strategy to be implemented across the country, it is exactly this kind of development that is required in order to revitalise deprived areas.

Thats what I'd say anyway.

 

[Dave the OAP]

But the economic regeneration of deprived wards IS part of the governments overall strategy on a national level. The regeneration of one area of East Brighton will obviously not have any significance on a national level when taken as an isolated case, but taken as part of the Governments overall planning strategy to be implemented across the country, it is exactly this kind of development that is required in order to revitalise deprived areas.

Thats what I'd say anyway.

Easy doesn't want Falmer

BURN HIM

 

[Barnet Seagull]

Sorry guys. They'll get a Judicial Review. They'll say it was irrational to overrule the first reports.

Council Tax Martyr would cause a few headlines. Get people to chip in a couple of quid to pay the court bills.

The fact that the public enquiry was re-opened means that there SHOULD be no grounds for a judicial review.

 

[Easy 10]

Don't be dirty Dave. I was just attempting to shoot down the NIMBY argument that Curious Orange thinks they might bring to the table for a J R.

as WELL YOU KNOW

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Easy doesn't want Falmer

BURN HIM

Keep up dave

 

[Curious Orange]

Don't be dirty Dave. I was just attempting to shoot down the NIMBY argument that Curious Orange thinks they might bring to the table for a J R.

as WELL YOU KNOW

I thought I'd already pointed out that it was a stupid argument though!!

It would take quite some balls to argue that a muddy field with some concrete Uni buildings is more important than social deprivation mind.

 

[Easy 10]

I thought I'd already pointed out that it was a stupid argument though!!

No harm in REINFORCING it though eh ?

 

[Dave the OAP]

Don't be dirty Dave. I was just attempting to shoot down the NIMBY argument that Curious Orange thinks they might bring to the table for a J R.

as WELL YOU KNOW

ah.....playing devil's advocate eh?


see....part of the dark side......

 

[Ex Shelton Seagull]

Are LDC going to concentrate on overturning one of the 2 applications that are on their turf, say the road junction improvements, in the knowledge that if one application fails the whole thing fails. Or are they going to try and fight the whole thing? Am I right in thinking that the judge could only order Prescott to look at the decision making process again, or would we have to do another inquiry (God forbid)? It's been obvious that FPC and LDC plans all along have been to string the whole thing out for so long that the club will go bust or be forced to give up. It's the same plan SWEAT tried to use back in 1999.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I received an e-mail this afternoon from LDC's District Solicitor:-

The Council has received legal advice from counsel and we are taking a report to Cabinet as an urgent item tomorrow so that a decision can be made within the 6 week statutory timescale.

The report is not a public one and members of the public will not be able to sit in on the debate.

Yours sincerely,

Catherine Knight
District Solicitor



I've replied:-

Dear Ms Knight

Thank you for this reply.

I fully understand why it is appropriate for ASPECTS of any decision to support an application for a Judicial Review of the First Secretary of State’s decision to be discussed in private. This is because the Cabinet will be considering counsel’s advice, which is exempt information, as defined in paragraph 12 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

However, there is another aspect to the decision that does NOT fall within the 1972 Act’s definition of “exempt information”. That is the political decision as to whether or not it is appropriate for the Council to commit public money to the pursuit of an outcome that is clearly not supported by the majority of residents in the District, including myself.

Can you confirm (1) that no commitment of funds will be made to pursuing a Judicial Review until AFTER members of the council have had the opportunity to debate the issue in public? And (2) that the Council will consult stakeholders, including the public, before such a debate takes place?

It is important that any decision to commit the funds of Lewes District Council to this venture is taken not only in the light of counsel’s advice, but in the context of local public opinion and the budget pressures that are currently being felt by the Council.

In view of the fact that the Cabinet meets tomorrow, I have copied this response to Cabinet Members and the Chief Executive.



I'll report any further developments

An update on today's correspondence with Ms Knight:-

Me to her:-

Further to my earlier, e-mail …

I have an additional question. Is the Council aware of the potential costs of pursuing an unsuccessful application for a Judicial Review? Surely it would be irresponsible to risk losing a substantial sum of Council Tax payers’ money, particularly on an issue where there is no evidence that the Council’s action would have the support of the majority of residents in the district.

Costs could potentially be well in excess of £150,000.

Here is an item from Solihull Council’s wbsite http://www.solihull.gov.uk/wwwce/asps/article.asp?id=477 :--

Cabinet decides against judicial review on Second Runway

From Councillor Ian Hillas, Deputy Leader of the Council on 19 January 2004

Solihull Council’s cabinet has decided not to take the Government to judicial review on its proposal to support the building of a second runway at Birmingham Airport.

The proposal was contained in the Government’s White Paper on the future of air transport.

In November 2002, Solihull Council’s stated that the case for a second runway did not justify the deterioration in the quality of life that would be suffered by Solihull residents. They also stated that any development should be made through local negotiations, on an incremental basis, in accordance with negotiated masterplan, UDP policy and balanced measures.

At a meeting held in private on Thursday 15 January, members considered their response to the Government’s White Paper, and whether a legal challenge would be possible.

They considered legal advice from leading counsel that advised that the Council was unlikely to succeed on any legal challenge by way of a judicial review.

Members also discussed the likely cost of a judicial review, which initially could cost the Council £50,000, and could possibly increase significantly.

Cllr Ian Hillas, Deputy Leader of Solihull Council, who is leading on matters relating to the airport, said: “We are very disappointed that the Government has not taken on board the Council’s response to the proposals detailed in the White Paper. However, we believe it would be irresponsible to spend taxpayers’ money on a legal challenge that is virtually certain to fail. We feel that we now need to work closely with Birmingham International Airport and other relevant parties to minimise the impact a second runway would have on the borough’s residents. We will press them to deal fairly with residents and end the uncertainty felt by those who may be affected by blight.”

Her reply to me (covering both of my messages, above):-

An estimate of costs is included within the report and will be considered by councillors, but the focus of the report is very much on an analysis of the legal advice received.

It is not usual for decisions on legal challenges to be subject to public consultation and in any event the statutory timescales for challenge would preclude this.

A decision must be made today because if there is to be a challenge it must be lodged in court within 6 weeks of Mr Prescott's decision.

I'm aware of the Solihull decision, but don't believe it to be a like-for-like comparison.

Yours sincerely

Catherine Knight

 

[Curious Orange]

No harm in REINFORCING it though eh ?

Only if you can doing it without confusing the more venerable posters on the board.

 

[sparkie]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An estimate of costs is included within the report and will be considered by councillors, but the focus of the report is very much on an analysis of the legal advice received.

It is not usual for decisions on legal challenges to be subject to public consultation and in any event the statutory timescales for challenge would preclude this.

A decision must be made today because if there is to be a challenge it must be lodged in court within 6 weeks of Mr Prescott's decision.

I'm aware of the Solihull decision, but don't believe it to be a like-for-like comparison.

Yours sincerely

Catherine Knight
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's quite obvious from this that they are going to go ahead with a Judicial Review application regardless of cost, come what may. Tossers. Let's hope the voters of Lewes remember this when they receive their council tax bills.

 

[Easy 10]

"It is not usual for decisions on legal challenges to be subject to public consultation and in any event the statutory timescales for challenge would preclude this."
Translation: We havn't got time. 6 weeks is not long enough to consult the oiks on this, not that we have to justify ourselves to the likes of you anyway, even though its your cash we'll be spending.

"A decision must be made today because if there is to be a challenge it must be lodged in court within 6 weeks of Mr Prescott's decision."
Translation: We've known for 5 months that the decision would be made by 31st October, and we also knew that we'd have 6 weeks from that date to launch a challenge if we didn't get the decision we wanted or assumed we would get. Despite this, we've made no provision for a public consultation on whether or not to challenge the decision, and now there isn't enough time anyway. So just cough up, beardy.

"I'm aware of the Solihull decision, but don't believe it to be a like-for-like comparison."
Translation: Stop raising awkward questions. Havn't you got an allotment to tend or something ?

Yours sincerely

Catherine Knight

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

Is it not beyond our capabilties to put up an independent councillor for the next elections in Lewes, running on the "do you remember how much these people wasted?" ticket?

These current councillors will push this through, with everyone else's money, and will expect the usual cushy re-election next time, hoping that the electorate have forgotten about these events.

Perhaps the electorate should not be allowed to forget these events?

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

I have a horrible feeling LDC are going to challenge this and go for a JR. Surely it is then time for a massive march in Lewes for Lewes residents who are pro Falmer about this

 

[Kent Seagull]

If LDC get JR and God forbid actually win, where does that leave the Albion? Could we appeal against the JR decision or would we be forced to give up on Falmer?

 

[Curious Orange]

If LDC get JR and God forbid actually win, where does that leave the Albion? Could we appeal against the JR decision or would we be forced to give up on Falmer?

Not really, even if any Judicial Review went against the Government, all they'd do is review their decision. That doesn't necessarily mean they'll change it.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

"I'm aware of the Solihull decision, but don't believe it to be a like-for-like comparison."
Translation: Stop raising awkward questions. Havn't you got an allotment to tend or something ?

My translation:-

Solihull Council spends £229 million a year and thinks spending £150,000 (0.07 per cent of its total spend) on a Judicial Review is "irresponsible".

Lewes District Council spends £11 million a year and thinks it's not worth consulting its residents about £150,000 (1.4 per cent of its total budget).

Yeah, it's not a like-for-like comparison. Proportionally, Lewes are prepared to take 21 times the financial risk that Solihull rejected as "irresponsible".

 

[Mr Blobby]

At Withdean!

It would spell the end of the club.