Skip to content

What’s happening at the Vale?

June 14, 2012

Agreement reached?

  1. Tim permalink
    June 14, 2012 1:26 pm

    And there I was hoping someone with some insight would finally be able to tell hoi polloi what the deal is with this deal – why they are doing this, and what does it all mean? Guess not!

  2. Father Abraham permalink
    June 14, 2012 4:05 pm

    Yes, an agreement has been reached.

    The decison(s) not to register the northern part of the site has been quashed after the council admitted it was wrong to rely on evidence that had only been subjected to a paper examination by one of their own officers.

    This extra evidence will now be placed in front of an independent inspector just like the original evidence was (to do otherwise, having admitted they wrong not to do so originally, would almost certainly invite another JR), and it is likely that a public inquiry will be held in which barristers for the Town Green campaigners and for the landowners will scrutinise the evidence and cross-examine the witnesses who provided the extra evidence.

    The Council has stated it will abide by the recommendation of the inspector – it did say that before, but this time it knows that local residents are willing and more than able to challenge any unlawful decision making.

    The southern part of the site remains a Town Green because the council did not rely on untested evidence when making that decision.

  3. Bobh permalink
    June 14, 2012 4:37 pm

    At last parts ot the agreement are appearing, but some bits are still missing.

    Does the southern area now include the stolen bits from the rearranged map.
    The silbury strip falls outside of both other areas and has not been subject to any change from tipping or other alterations, thus not be subject to the new evidence, what is this areas status.
    If the new evidence is proven to be false the registration committee could still not register the northern site, as the council could advise them that way, have they agreed to accept the report and register.
    This all means i presume that the original report still stands and its recommendation will be re-presented to the committee as before with or without the new evidence, at some future time.

  4. bobs permalink
    June 14, 2012 7:27 pm

    The stolen bits from the southern part of the land are now considered part of the northern part of the land. Peter Abraham claims that that was what he meant to do all along.

    The southern TVG which remains regisstered is therefore probably about 18 acres but half of might be the drainage pond/wetlands to take the run off from the north

    Still not clear exactly what is going to happen regarding resolving the northern section of the land – how and in what format this “new” evidence will be dealt with.

    And Anthony Butcher is reporting a whopping costs order paid by BCC to SAVE. The loser pays the winner’s costs in litigation, so that clearly signifies who has won the Judicial Review.

  5. June 14, 2012 9:31 pm

    Anthony Butcher reveals the council has coughed up a whopping £58000 for costs to SAVE.
    £58 grand!
    Add on their own costs and you’re probably looking at £100 grand chucked away.
    No point in having another duplicate inspector to look at ‘evidence’. Enough of our money has been thrown away on the failed green-belt grabbers already.

    Almost exactly a year ago Peter Abraham as chair of the PROW stated:

    “My personal view is that I am convinced we should reject the inspector’s advice.

    “I don’t think this qualifies as a town green and it brings the process into disrepute.”
    This was on May4th 2011 as reported by the Evening Lost.
    He also proclaimed that ‘Sainsburys is ready…’ as if the monster high st destroyers were the most important factors in the equation. LINK

    If only they’d heeded the advice and informed comment on here.
    Instead the dopey councillors have just blown £100k for a bucketload of fudge.

  6. harry permalink
    June 14, 2012 10:13 pm

    BCC will have spent far more on their own legal costs. BCC hired QCs (as did Lansdown) whilst the TVGers had junior barristers.

    Some one should FOI the costs but I reckon it must be at least £100k on BCC’s own lawyers trying to defend the judical review.

  7. Michael permalink
    June 15, 2012 8:08 pm

    I wonder if they pushed McNamara into early retirement to offset costs?

Comments are closed.