Why Lewes had to challenge

[Graham2]

I got an interesting perspective from my brother who is a planner in Hampshire and his view is that Lewes have no alternative if they are to appease the electorate in marginal areas such as the villages as well as the environmentalist non football fans within the town. If the Tories were in Lewes it would be the same.
The challenge is likely to be centred around using the regeneration of Moulsecombe as the reason behind allowing a community stadium to be developed in an AONB. The challenge will be within 6 months, probably cost £60k (which Lewes can justify for the above reasons). It will fail and they know this but Lewes will have been seen to attempt to challenge a Labour decision which they believe is political and about self preservation in marginal Brighton and Hove.
Of course, everybody knows that Falmer has wealthy residents/old families who will push Lewes to act to protect their property values and that is all it is about of course (you could apply this to other villages in Lewes DC). A cynic (not me) could say it is nothing about regeneration of Moulsecombe either but all about keeping football fans happy in the city who are likely labour supporters or future ones.
Ironic, isn't it, that once the stadium is built and established, Falmer residents will be able to sell up at good prices to Albion players and "new money" that want to live close to a football stadium whilst living away from the bustle of Brighton and Hove.
What does everyone think (I am still awaiting a FOI Act reply from Lewes about costs to mount the challenge).

 

[Gritt23]

But surely, if they lose they can't be sure the costs will top out at £60k because they will have to pick up the Governments costs from the case.

 

[clapham_gull]

But surely, if they lose they can't be sure the costs will top out at £60k because they will have to pick up the Governments costs from the case.

It's possible that they don't have to pay the Governments costs or the developers. I believe in the recent Pembrokeshire case the Judge decided that the review was in the public interest. Costs were not awarded against the opposition. They did have to pay the costs of failing to take the case to the House of Lords.

 

[Rangdo]

It's possible that they don't have to pay the Governments costs or the developers. I believe in the recent Pembrokeshire case the Judge decided that the review was in the public interest. Costs were not awarded against the opposition. They did have to pay the costs of failing to take the case to the House of Lords.

Only a possibility though. They may well have to pick up both sets of costs in which case it will be way above £60K

 

[Easy 10]

Well SOMEONE has to pick up the costs. If the governments decision is upheld, why should they have to foot the bill for having their decision called in by a local authority ?

 

[clapham_gull]

Only a possibility though. They may well have to pick up both sets of costs in which case it will be way above £60K

Of course, just pointing out the above. I've had a feeling that Lewes think they have to be seen to do this.

 

[The Large One]

It's possible that they don't have to pay the Governments costs or the developers. I believe in the recent Pembrokeshire case the Judge decided that the review was in the public interest. Costs were not awarded against the opposition. They did have to pay the costs of failing to take the case to the House of Lords.

The judge decided not to award the costs against the NIMBYs because they were a small group trying to justify their single-issue cause. They got clobbered in the House of Lords where they you would have thought they would have learned their lesson.

Lewes Distrcit Council on the other hand is a planning authority and is going ahead with this challenge fully knowing (but not yet acknowledging) what they are doing. It is irrelevant to the Councillors that the planners and officers in the Council know that what they are doing is going to fail. They are trying to tell them but they are not listening.

For that reason, if/when they lose, Lewes will cop for the lot, the courts having been told by then that this was a malicious challenge.

In our own minds, we are trying to reason with the unreasonable, and fathom out the unfathomable. What it comes down to is nothing more than the fact that, unfortunately, these people really are that stupid, and they're gambling with someone else's money.

 

[perseus]

Opinion is worth a plug (or whatever) but the planner lives in Hampshire, so he is a little bit out of touch, but not that much because the calibre of Councillors is much the same everywhere. But I (and others do as well) know with reasonable certainty that the initiative to oppose the stadium on AONB grounds was taken a long time ago (before the Planning Permission was first applied for) and it was not by the Lewes Councillors or the Falmer NIMBYs for that matter, but it was by certain person(s) in the downs lobby (with what they think is legal expertise). I know this first hand from two sources (but one source may be hearsay, but the other one was from the horse's mouth).

My best guess is the precise legal challenge in your message is not correct either. That is a red herring? Or at best a wild guess? (You can check this with him?)

What may be correct is that Lewes Council and their Masters will not have to pay the legal costs, or not all of them. Nobody seems to paid them in other cases. The costs will be be in excess of £60K, more like £120K minimum I would have thought from previous cases. Then I still think they can go to the House of Lords and increase the costs still further.

I would not rely on the Pembrokeshire case being a precedent either.

I would not like to forecast the outcome. I think it will get thrown out without amendment and it might get thrown out at the first stage. The legal bods will have to sort this out.

I do not think the letter from the ODPM was as clear as it ought to be, hence the opportunity for the legal challenge. I think they would have made the legal challenge however clear or murky it was and everybody in a position of power knew fully well they would do.

All is not lost though. The Downs lobby representatives (mainly the SDCB) have always done it this way and have been overuled 40% of the time.

What is particular galling is the Downs lobby have misled the the public and misrepresented the land at Falmer. They may even mislead the Court with their representation? They have arrogance to try to do so.

(Opinion only, but the sources are genuine.)

 

[The Large One]

Back to your usual f***ing mind-numbing gibberish I see, Judas Horton.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

It's possible that they don't have to pay the Governments costs or the developers. I believe in the recent Pembrokeshire case the Judge decided that the review was in the public interest. Costs were not awarded against the opposition. They did have to pay the costs of failing to take the case to the House of Lords.

They were ordered to pay the costs of the Appeal Court stage, where the three judges decided that the High Court was right and the planning permission was perfectly legal.

 

[London Irish]

The challenge is likely to be centred around using the regeneration of Moulsecombe as the reason behind allowing a community stadium to be developed in an AONB.

A totally bizarre reason to challenge the decision. This is a matter fully dealt with in the ODPM report, sections 27 to 29. How are Lewes going to claim that these were matters "overlooked" by Prescott?

 

[BensGrandad]

They were ordered to pay the costs of the Appeal Court stage, where the three judges decided that the High Court was right and the planning permission was perfectly legal.

Could this not be what the originator of this thread is saying that as a matter of course they make an application to the High Court and secretly hope that it is rejected and they do not incur many costs and they are then seen to have done their duty for the electorate that they are trying to attract. They can then say 'well we tried but the court said No'

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

Could this not be what the originator of this thread is saying that as a matter of course they make an application to the High Court and secretly hope that it is rejected and they do not incur many costs and they are then seen to have done their duty for the electorate that they are trying to attract. They can then say 'well we tried but the court said No'

Possibly, but then it would be in their best interests to have an "open" meeting, not a closed door one (even if they have secretly met previously and scripted the meeting).

Unfortunately, I think that their chosen solicitor may well be pushing them to appeal (he has been involved, and been beaten, before on these), because he will make money whether they win or lose. If he was on a "no-win-no-fee", I reckon you wouldn't see him for dust.

 

[Rangdo]

unfortunately, these people really are that stupid, and they're gambling with someone else's money.

And thats why it's so easy for them to do.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Could this not be what the originator of this thread is saying that as a matter of course they make an application to the High Court and secretly hope that it is rejected and they do not incur many costs and they are then seen to have done their duty for the electorate that they are trying to attract. They can then say 'well we tried but the court said No'

Oh God .... I'm going to have to agree with BenGrandad ...

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

the court said No'

:cough:

 

[perseus]

http://www.theargus.co.uk/the_argus/news/NEWS11.html

Legal Challenge, but the details of the grounds are still not in the public domain?