| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re::Mogden update | |
| Posted by: | Steve Taylor | |
| Date/Time: | 06/12/10 22:13:00 |
| Adam, We have indeed discussed this before and whilst I respect your view I can only reiterate that the view of residents' legal team (environment and planning) is that deferral was obligatory in this case. Consider that the applicant had already been found guilty under EPA 1990 of causing an unlawful nuisance and the application, to be determined on its merits, had to be considered as exactly that. Quality of deserving; good works; intrinsic rights. It was and remains our view that the merits of the application will be known when the High Court hands down judgement. The law of this land is based on precedents and indeed sets new precedents. If you look at the Video of the SDC - the then Lead Member for Environment clearly found that application should be refused. The borough solicitor asked for grounds for refusal and it was agreed that the application was not sustainable. The rest is history because as you know she changed her mind when Thames spokesperson told her they would appeal to the Mayor of London and Secretary of State etc etc. However - if they had deferred the application - what would have happened next? The Mayor would have been compelled to take legal advice and would no doubt have taken the time to study the disclosed documents and evidence put before the High Court - something LBH didn't seem to recognise as an option. The bottom line is that any appeal by the applicant would have dragged out until the High Court reached its conclusion. What's wrong with that? However - that's history and LBH will have to answer to that in due course. The purpose of this thread started by Cllr Todd is to glean information on how the Council are handling the expansion program and how the conditions of the S106 are being met. Sadly they are not and the independent survey has received much comment from expert witnesses and residents' legal team. Whilst Cllr Todd is aware of the involvement of his party in agreeing the S106 he is also aware that the outcome of the litigation will render much sewage on the hands and faces of his party colleagues. Cllr Todd is also aware that to pacify residents his administration dangled a carrot to constituents by serving a number of Abatement Notices on the applicant. Unfortunately these notices were served in such a rush before the election that the Council 'forgot' to consult with residents expert witnesses resulting in the Notices being not really worth the paper they are written on. There was absolutely no doubt in our minds that the notices were so poorly drafted that they would be openly inviting Thames Water to appeal. In fact I believe two of the six notices were withdrawn by Hounslow within a couple of weeks of issuance and a quick glance over by Thames' legal team. It thus comes as no surprise that the magistrate handling this LBH case has postponed the appeal until such time as he can study the High Court Judgement in detail. One wonders just what type of Environmental Services Director would sign off a planning application (as sustainable) with his right hand and sign off six abatement notices with his left hand simultaneously It just makes you think doesn't it? The SDC wouldn't recognise the importance and authority of the High Court of Justice, but a local magistrate insists upon it! |