The judges written response.

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
it really does my head in that i dont have the motivation to read it all, so many words so many pages, is it good or is it bad, Im lazy :D
 
What does amaze me is that pretty much all the rumours from both parties are tackled in depth here and were all quite accurate (as rumours) in their reporting.

This judge does seem to accept that persuasion and harassment has been rife from the pro side but dismisses it from the anti side, which sums this all up for me.

A judge who has passed the buck and helped his mates get a little summer earner...?
 
If I read this right, the judge says that there was a precedent for allowing a new claim
to be made in substitution of the one dropped and that this precedent was set by
himself in 2007...!!

So how did the Council's lawyers think he was going to go against a legal precedent
that he had set himself. They must be a total bunch of idiots.

I remember someone from the Council saying when the news broke that to allow
a new claim would be totally against previous legal rulings. What great advice
they must get from their legal people.

TBH if you read what it says it makes sense even if you aren't a judge.
All he seems to be saying is that the situation is no worse for the Council/Landowners
than it was before as the exact same case is being heard at the review.
Can't find a good reason to disagree with that as it is common sense really.

Just bloody annoying - and I have a bad feeling that some naughty business that
may have been going on might backfire badly. The judge spells out that any bully boy
tactics would sway the case against us so let's hope whoever is in charge of the
JR is less persuaded by the "evidence" of this than this bloke seemed to be......
 
Thank you Banksy for posting this. Amazing that a judge who set the precedent in 2007 is the one who is agreeing the Judicial Review should proceed.
Also amazing that Ashton Vale has now become a "Village" according to paragraph 24 - sub para 5. It certainly wasn't when I lived there in the 70's, it is a district within the City of Bristol and pretty drab too.
Having read the statement on City's web site, it is now clear that the landowners, Vence LLP who have Stephen Lansdown as a partner, instead of accepting the council's ruling on "half stadium and half village green" will now be taking positive steps to quote "release the whole site from Town and Village Green registration".
I believe those who think SL is about to walk away do not understand what a very determined person he is. May have made some personnel mistakes in respect of managers at City but does not give up easily. I predict that he will not walk away from City even if we do go down.
 
robin-r - not quite right, he did in fact end the original application so this is not substitution. Instead, he allowed a new application because it was not for him to go against the public interest which is surely and unsound decision and grounds for appeal itself..?

He also refers to circumstantial evidence which, whilst not proven, he chose to believe...

Crap, crap, crap decision....

Agreed cider, the gloves are off now and I hope that the TVG lot lose the whole lot...
 
The judge who made this decision appears, from his notes / reason for allowing etc, to be accepting that this is a legitimate way for those who do not want the stadium to continue their protest.
However the Judicial Review is surely a review of the procedures that Bristol City Council followed when they split the land into two parts, YVG and Non TVG.
Lansdown' and Council's QC's will surely remedy this during the actual Judicial Review as TVG is not a method to overturn legitimately processed planning applications.
The whole TVG legislation appears very flawed and needs to be scrapped or seriously rewritten withou delay as it is causing so many instances like Ashton Vale throughout the country. Mos in Bristol are only aware of this instance because it is such high profile in Bristol but there are literally hundreds of legitimately agreed planning applications that cannot proceed because TVG has proved to be a method of bringing them to a grinding halt before the work can begin.
And one other point. This old man in Ashton Vale, while he may not want the stadium, hardly has the resources to fund this. Someone big is pulling strings in the background and it will be interesting to know who it is. There appears to be a much bigger agenda than we think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back