52 replies to this topic

[RetiredMember2]

The legal challenge to the LDA Masterplan has failed.

In summing up Mr Justice Kieth said he believed the Secretary of State, Mr Pickles, had weighed up the public benefit of the scheme against the small impact on the park's bat population!! That was not the focus of the challenge and it is very disappointing to see it represented in that way.

Still as much as this comes as bad news to some, to others it will be happily recieved and we can now look forward to a new regenerated Crystal Palace Park and Housing Estate - only 180 units going.. going... gone!

[Summit Lover]

Just mentioned on LBC too.

[Ziwa]

That's pretty shocking that the challenge was so clearly misrepresented. Two points of complete failure: 1) the core of the challenge was about the selling off of public parkland, 2) in fact the effect on bats will be significant. So wrong on both counts, Mr Justice Keith. Go to the back of the class.

[Canon]

There may already be a thread about this so merge please

http://www.bbc.co.uk...london-18421109

[RetiredMember1]

Whilst protection of wildlife is clearly important, it's a crying shame the CPCA's case appears to have been undermined by the judge's concentration on the "bat-commuting routes" - It might just be in the reporting of it, but this objection, which was one of several and not the CPCA's central grounds for appeal, appears to have been dismissed as rather eccentric and even laughable - which is a shame for both us and the bats.

[gekko]

I've merged the topics and kept the topic title that was most descriptive.

[dickp]

Good. I hope costs are awarded against the CPCA. That'll teach them for holding up a perfectly sensible plan to improve the park.

[dickp]

Full judgment here, for those of you willing to wade through it. It wasn't just about the bats. Not by a long shot.

http://www.bailii.or...&method=boolean

Only minimal costs awarded agains the CPCA. That's a pity. Of course, this could still go to appeal...

[Dazza]

Glad common sense prevails !

[kibitzer]

I hope that the redevelopment of the park can go forward now without anymore holdups.

[Ziwa]

I've merged the topics and kept the topic title that was most descriptive.

Sorry, I beg to differ. The 68mill development was not the issue under contention. That is the end result if about 60mill plus can be found from other sources.

The most descriptive and neutral title would be 'Judge upholds Bromley's right to sell off Metropolitan Open Land of Crystal Palace Park'. Adding the implication that it will get anywhere close to the needed funds for developing the park is misleading. Much more importantly, it sets a terrible precident for the rest of the country.

GillW said it very well.

Whilst protection of wildlife is clearly important, it's a crying shame the CPCA's case appears to have been undermined by the judge's concentration on the "bat-commuting routes" - It might just be in the reporting of it, but this objection, which was one of several and not the CPCA's central grounds for appeal, appears to have been dismissed as rather eccentric and even laughable - which is a shame for both us and the bats.

Kibitzer, this will do almost nothing to get the renovations going in the park. It will raise 10% or less of the needed funds. You can't even get a mortgage on a house these days with only 10% down.

[jamesl]

Thanks for publishing the link to the judgment dickp, which clearly shows that all four grounds relied upon by the CPCA were fully considered and dismissed.

Having now had their objections considered and rejected by both an independent planning inspector with no local/political interest in the outcome and by an impartial high court judge, it would be refreshing to see the CPCA accept defeat with good grace, put their energy behind supporting those elements of the master plan which they can live with and work with others to explore the posibility of alternative funding sources.

[jamesl]

The most descriptive and neutral title would be 'Judge upholds Bromley's right to sell off Metropolitan Open Land of Crystal Palace Park'.

That's hardly neutral. The application was for a judicial review of the SoS's decision to approve the planning application for masterplan. That was approval of all of it, not bits of it. See para 3 and 58 of the actual judgment.....

"Following a lengthy hearing before an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State, the inspector submitted a long report to the Secretary of State dated 26 April 2010 in which he recommended that planning permission should be granted subject to various conditions. The Secretary of State took a different view about some of those conditions, but apart from that he granted both full and outline planning permission for the LDA's proposals. The letter in which his decision was given was dated 13 December 2010. Two members of the Crystal Palace Community Association, Mr Anthony Elliott and Mr John Payne, now question the validity of the Secretary of State's decision by an application under section 288(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ("the 1990 Act").

It follows that the claimants' application questioning the validity of the Secretary of State's decision to grant the LDA outline planning permission for its proposals must be dismissed"

[gekko]

Sorry, I beg to differ. The 68mill development was not the issue under contention. That is the end result if about 60mill plus can be found from other sources.

The most descriptive and neutral title would be 'Judge upholds Bromley's right to sell off Metropolitan Open Land of Crystal Palace Park'. Adding the implication that it will get anywhere close to the needed funds for developing the park is misleading. Much more importantly, it sets a terrible precident for the rest of the country.

GillW said it very well.



Kibitzer, this will do almost nothing to get the renovations going in the park. It will raise 10% or less of the needed funds. You can't even get a mortgage on a house these days with only 10% down.

The options were the above title or 'LDA Masterplan', the title chosen by Citizen M. I think 'LDA Masterplan' was used as part of a previous thread title so I selected the option that was related to the BBC news article and, therefore, relevant to the current discussion angle. The moderator doesn't really have any business changing a thread title unless there's a strong reason for doing so. If I did that, I'd be interfering rather than moderating. I was only really interested in merging two threads quickly before they both expanded and became impossible to merge cleanly (posts are sorted chronologically so you have a very short window to merge threads so they still make sense). To be honest, I'm due to leave for Yorkshire in 20 minutes to attend a big two day strategy session and don't really have time to debate the intricacies of a thread title.

[Dazza]

I think we should have another street /park party !