No Ashton Vale Hearing Untill Oct 2013!

[Super]

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Ashton-Vale-inquiry-childcare-problems-say/story-17459532-detail/story.html

Hilarious!

[Cider red]

http://www.thisisbri...tail/story.html

Hilarious!

what a complete joke! Hopefully ferguson can get this pushed forward to earlier next year, i think he is actually on our side on this one. Child care issues? more stalling tactics, just shows how the legal system is completely on the nimbys side!

[RED4LIFE]

Official statement now on OS

http://www.bcfc.co.uk/news/article/291112-vencestatement-516669.aspx

[downendcity]

I think we are all pissing in the wind desperately looking for positives which arent there.

Sounds like most match days this season.

[Super]

The worst thing is that they are getting away with taking the Piss. Someone get a ****in grip.

[Barrs Court Red]

The nationals would love this! If any of my more serious fellow posters would like to email the usual suspects* that'd be grand

*the scum, daily hate and torygraph would be good starting points

[chipdawg]

This delay was never likely to be down to the landowners side; if a man like Lansdown employed a solicitor who couldn't find space in his/her diary, he'd go out and get himself a new lawyer! My guess would be that the NIMBYs are trying to delay things as much as possible to run down the PP on the Sainsburys application

[Kid in the Riot]

[Kid in the Riot]

The nationals would love this! If any of my more serious fellow posters would like to email the usual suspects* that'd be grand

*the scum, daily hate and torygraph would be good starting points

Nah the Torygraph are in the 'save our beloved green belt' camp.

[real_bristol]

Usually it has to be more substantial than that actually as 'development' has to commence, so foundations put in place or an engineering operation carried out.

We have 2 years, 3 months left on the clock.

That's why the landowners don't want to be waiting until October 2013 for the inquiry!

In light of what it says in sec. 56(4)(b) of the Planning Act 1990:

• The digging of a trench which is to contain the foundations, or part of the foundations of any building;
  

Suggesting that you are both right but a hole might be enough!

[del ete]

So then nimby247 webpage was lieing all along?! Very sneaky indeed. I guess we should of known better than to believe that article.

Looks like they wanted a reduced hearing asap where as landowners wanted a full hearing which would involve all evidence being presented again and cross examined. They are now threatening to call another judicial review if the council dont agree to a shortened hearing.

These guys are sneaky theres no doubt

[chipdawg]

So then nimby247 webpage was lieing all along?! Very sneaky indeed. I guess we should of known better than to believe that article.

Looks like they wanted a reduced hearing asap where as landowners wanted a full hearing which would involve all evidence being presented again and cross examined. They are now threatening to call another judicial review if the council dont agree to a shortened hearing.

These guys are sneaky theres no doubt

I don't think they can do that can they? At least not until the hearing has gone ahead and let's face it; if they lose they'll call for a judicial review anyway so having a full hearing that the landowner wins would only strengthen his position going forward. The more I hear about this, the more I think the NIMBYs are getting desperate

[arpaul]

this will be heard before then, it will go to whitehall before then

No it wont.

I was surprised to hear on Radio Bristol that our New Mayor has told all parties to report back to him next week with a new agreed time line, as next October is not acceptable to any concerned.

We're waiting for the TVG legislation to change. Obvious.

I don't think this correct. I'm pretty sure that any new TVG legislation is not retrospective, and is only to be used for new applications going forward?

[BCAGFC]

Looks like Crispin has responded on NIMBY 24/7, he just doesn't get it.

BCAGFC

[weeble]

We dont know what power the new Mayor will have. If he has a say in this you can bet he will scupper the plans!

Fret not. Mayors do not have planning powers. These have to remain with committees as one person would be wide open to bribery/corruption allegations.

[The Bard]

Fret not. Mayors do not have planning powers. These have to remain with committees as one person would be wide open to bribery/corruption allegations.

Absolutely. No one has ever bothered bribing a mere committee member have they?

[City's Defence!!]

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Ashton-Vale-inquiry-childcare-problems-say/story-17459532-detail/story.html

I am totally confused now!!! So who has put this back is it the NIMBYS or the landowners????

[Esmond Million's Bung]

http://www.thisisbri...tail/story.html

I am totally confused now!!! So who has put this back is it the NIMBYS or the landowners????

Yep and me who the **** actually needs a baby sitter? FFS

[Snufflelufagus]

Maybe we can introduce a cresh into the new stadium plays which would negate the Child care issue.

[del ete]

Fret not. Mayors do not have planning powers. These have to remain with committees as one person would be wide open to bribery/corruption allegations.

Not yet they dont! but Fergie was visiting the goverment bigwigs yesterday to plead for extra powers in regards to planning decisions & Supermarkets. No idea of the outcome though...

[cheese]

http://www.thisisbri...tail/story.html

I am totally confused now!!! So who has put this back is it the NIMBYS or the landowners????

The truth is probably a bit of both. According to the BBC, two weeks is needed - the landowners barrister is unavailable for that amount of time until near the end of June 2013, then the holidays kick in and everyone's availability doesn't coincide until 7th October 2013.

To me, the City council and Vence LLP have been busy "spinning" since this whole sorry saga started - maybe if they stopped and started telling it as it is we might start getting somewhere.

[del ete]

http://www.thisisbri...tail/story.html

I am totally confused now!!! So who has put this back is it the NIMBYS or the landowners????

My take for what its worth:

Nimbys wanted a short hearing asap, the landowners wanted an extended 10 day hearing so that all of their new evidence could be heard in full, and also wanted the old evidence to be given again & cross examined.

The Nimbys didnt want an extended hearing, so decided to delay proceedings until October 2013 claiming their legal team had child care issues.

Bristol 247 (Nimby mouthpiece) claims that the landowners are to blame for the delay for not giving into their demands for a shortened enquiry. It seems to me they are worried that their "evidence" might not stand up again, or that the new evidence from the landowners might be sufficient to change the inital VG report on the northern section of the plot. (The southern section already appears to be registered as a VG - so they already have a 22 acre site behind the houses which can never be built on).

[Super]

My take for what its worth:

Nimbys wanted a short hearing asap, the landowners wanted an extended 10 day hearing so that all of their new evidence could be heard in full, and also wanted the old evidence to be given again & cross examined.

The Nimbys didnt want an extended hearing, so decided to delay proceedings until October 2013 claiming their legal team had child care issues.

Bristol 247 (Nimby mouthpiece) claims that the landowners are to blame for the delay for not giving into their demands for a shortened enquiry. It seems to me they are worried that their "evidence" might not stand up again, or that the new evidence from the landowners might be sufficient to change the inital VG report on the northern section of the plot. (The southern section already appears to be registered as a VG - so they already have a 22 acre site behind the houses which can never be built on).

Why don't they just declare it a split site and everyone is happy?!

[Esmond Million's Bung]

My take for what its worth:

Nimbys wanted a short hearing asap, the landowners wanted an extended 10 day hearing so that all of their new evidence could be heard in full, and also wanted the old evidence to be given again & cross examined.

The Nimbys didnt want an extended hearing, so decided to delay proceedings until October 2013 claiming their legal team had child care issues.

Bristol 247 (Nimby mouthpiece) claims that the landowners are to blame for the delay for not giving into their demands for a shortened enquiry. It seems to me they are worried that their "evidence" might not stand up again, or that the new evidence from the landowners might be sufficient to change the inital VG report on the northern section of the plot. (The southern section already appears to be registered as a VG - so they already have a 22 acre site behind the houses which can never be built on).

The amount these parasites charge and earn + their undoubted off shore tax avoidance schemes (because of course they are legal) they could hire a whole creche just for themselves, it is I am sorry to say just another reason to believe that Britains justice system is manipulated by the people within it and never aimed at finding truth and justice.

[real_bristol]

My take for what its worth:

Nimbys wanted a short hearing asap, the landowners wanted an extended 10 day hearing so that all of their new evidence could be heard in full, and also wanted the old evidence to be given again & cross examined.

The Nimbys didnt want an extended hearing, so decided to delay proceedings until October 2013 claiming their legal team had child care issues.

Bristol 247 (Nimby mouthpiece) claims that the landowners are to blame for the delay for not giving into their demands for a shortened enquiry. It seems to me they are worried that their "evidence" might not stand up again, or that the new evidence from the landowners might be sufficient to change the inital VG report on the northern section of the plot. (The southern section already appears to be registered as a VG - so they already have a 22 acre site behind the houses which can never be built on).

Im not so sure. They appealed the split site decision and then the council pulled out of the appeal/JR so I thought we were back to starting again with the TVG issue. The only difference is the landowners will now go for the lot as the NIMBYs won't compromise at all.

[del ete]

Im not so sure. They appealed the split site decision and then the council pulled out of the appeal/JR so I thought we were back to starting again with the TVG issue. The only difference is the landowners will now go for the lot as the NIMBYs won't compromise at all.

See previous post mate, looks like its already registered!:

https://www.bristol....005/0917_10.pdf

Ashton Vale (File No. JD5/386)

• Application No: 12

• Date Application received: 26 October 2009

• Description of Application land: Ashton Vale Fields

• Location of Application land: Ashton Vale Fields, adjoining North Somerset

Boundary , Between Ashton Vale Drive Cul-de-sac and The Park and Ride

(Application Map showing registered part -Appendix B)

• Applicants: Mr Michael J Peters and Linda Stone

• Land owner: Vence LLP

• State of Application: Committee decision to register part 16 June 2011. Part

registered on 26 July 2011. Balance of land to be referred to inspector Crail

for a public inquiry. Pre-inquiry process to start in October 2012.

[cheese]

Im not so sure. They appealed the split site decision and then the council pulled out of the appeal/JR so I thought we were back to starting again with the TVG issue. The only difference is the landowners will now go for the lot as the NIMBYs won't compromise at all.

No, the southern section has already been registered as a TG - the fight for that is dead.

[Timbo7]

This has to be the most absurd and embarrassing thread yet on the subject of this ongoing charade.

In the early part of the week the story was than Lansdown's team had delayed the new hearing until next October and the Faithful decided that this was good news because Saint Stephen had an ace up his sleeve which he would not be able to play until the Summer - well done Steve, professionalism at its best - let's see the nimbys squeal!

The Mayor called for an earlier resolution to the nonsense and was roundly condemned for bias

The following day it was claimed by Vence LLP (whoever they may be) claimed that failure to agree a date before June 13 was really the result of the applicants claiming to have childcare issues during the holiday period. It's not clear to me what holiday period this is because July/August fall after June on my calendar. The Faithful then switched tack by 180 degrees - this is disgraceful - this should not be allowed to go on - we should lobby the national press - let's blame the European Convention on Human Rights / Barrack Obama / the Green Party and Angela Merkel . the Greek economy.

From my experience of trying to get a herd of City lawyers into the same room at the same time this sort of delay is all too commonplace - all have busy diaries and all seem to get some absurd pleasure from offering a range of dates that they know in advance the other side cannot meet - both sides then table a whole host of fanciful reasons why the dates offered are unsuitable - and finally they seek to gain the high ground by accusing the other side of causing delays. It seems to me that holiday period childcare can have only been cited as a reason for failure to agree a date before June 13 if the earlier dates offered by Lansdown's team were limited to Christmas, Easter and half-terms.

Returning to the substance of the matter - The Growth and Infrastructure Bill, if it becomes law, will provide a bar to new applications for TVG status where valid planning consent is in place - it will not apply retrospectively and will therefore have no effect on Ashton Vale. In any event I retain the view that the Bill is likely to have a bumpy (and slow) ride through the House of Lords as it strikes at the heart of the British constitution (but it has nothing to do with the European Convention on Human Rights and even less to do with the EU).

As a matter of Law (if it is relevant) the fight (if there is one) for the southern section is not dead as its registration was a consequence of Council action for which a judicial review was granted AND that review did not proceed because the Council elected not to defend itself. It is therefore clearly open for Lansdown's team to argue in the High Court that the Council has already acknowledged it was wrong in taking the action it did and hence the registration must be invalid and a nullity.

[The Bard]

This has to be the most absurd and embarrassing thread yet on the subject of this ongoing charade.

In the early part of the week the story was than Lansdown's team had delayed the new hearing until next October and the Faithful decided that this was good news because Saint Stephen had an ace up his sleeve which he would not be able to play until the Summer - well done Steve, professionalism at its best - let's see the nimbys squeal!

The Mayor called for an earlier resolution to the nonsense and was roundly condemned for bias

The following day it was claimed by Vence LLP (whoever they may be) claimed that failure to agree a date before June 13 was really the result of the applicants claiming to have childcare issues during the holiday period. It's not clear to me what holiday period this is because July/August fall after June on my calendar. The Faithful then switched tack by 180 degrees - this is disgraceful - this should not be allowed to go on - we should lobby the national press - let's blame the European Convention on Human Rights / Barrack Obama / the Green Party and Angela Merkel . the Greek economy.

From my experience of trying to get a herd of City lawyers into the same room at the same time this sort of delay is all too commonplace - all have busy diaries and all seem to get some absurd pleasure from offering a range of dates that they know in advance the other side cannot meet - both sides then table a whole host of fanciful reasons why the dates offered are unsuitable - and finally they seek to gain the high ground by accusing the other side of causing delays. It seems to me that holiday period childcare can have only been cited as a reason for failure to agree a date before June 13 if the earlier dates offered by Lansdown's team were limited to Christmas, Easter and half-terms.

Returning to the substance of the matter - The Growth and Infrastructure Bill, if it becomes law, will provide a bar to new applications for TVG status where valid planning consent is in place - it will not apply retrospectively and will therefore have no effect on Ashton Vale. In any event I retain the view that the Bill is likely to have a bumpy (and slow) ride through the House of Lords as it strikes at the heart of the British constitution (but it has nothing to do with the European Convention on Human Rights and even less to do with the EU).

As a matter of Law (if it is relevant) the fight (if there is one) for the southern section is not dead as its registration was a consequence of Council action for which a judicial review was granted AND that review did not proceed because the Council elected not to defend itself. It is therefore clearly open for Lansdown's team to argue in the High Court that the Council has already acknowledged it was wrong in taking the action it did and hence the registration must be invalid and a nullity.

Who do you think you are coming on here using fact, an understanding of the law and a realistic assessment of matters?

Your point about lawyers is spot on. It obviously pays to stretch the whole thing out as long as possible as far as they're concerned. They don't give a monkeys what the outcome will be.

[TRL]

Who do you think you are coming on here using fact, an understanding of the law and a realistic assessment of matters?

Your point about lawyers is spot on. It obviously pays to stretch the whole thing out as long as possible as far as they're concerned. They don't give a monkeys what the outcome will be.

Of course they care, if they happily take the money and lose every case, I doubt they would have many clients in the future! Basics of keeping a business alive I would say!

But agreed, they will string it out, just like anyone getting paid by the hour!