Counsel’s Submissions run to 81 pages, although it is worth adding that there are a substantial number of pictures. There will be no attempt to provide a synopsis here. It contains no closing summary. To give you a taste:
“the interventions of GLA in this case have been rootless, partial, opportunistic and political. It seeks reductions in height (where previously it sought increases) but with no consideration as to whether such schemes would be remotely deliverable, and it seeks to increase affordable housing when its suggested reductions in volume however disposed would necessarily reduce any reasonable maximum provision of affordable housing. …. [It] studiously avoided any real reference to this history, wiping it from the page in the way that embarrassing former colleagues were removed from photographs by Soviet
propaganda agents.”
There are no doubt some important points to be put in the balance but given the context of this approach they might be lost along the way.
Discover more from EastSheenMatters
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Interesting that the Developer has chosen to adopt the tactic of an ad hominem attack against the GLA, which implies the Developer is losing the argument for its proposed scheme.
LikeLike
*Developer’s Counsel* , not ‘the Developer’.
LikeLike
In terms of the scheme Counsel is merely the representative. So a further question I might ask is whether his conduct of the case was based on instructions. Not today because his clients had all gone home.
LikeLike
“… that embarrassing former colleagues were removed from photographs by Soviet
propaganda agents”
It is wholly inappropriate for an educated individual to speak in this way in an enquiry, especially given the continuing Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The comparison offered is not only irrelevant to the enquiry, but that ‘removed from photographs’ is not the issue; the issue is the barbaric reason for the removals. Photographs of individuals such as Trotsky, Yezhov and Kamenev were removed due to them previously having being executed by the state, in the case of Kamenev his family subsequently similarly treated.
I will write to Landmark Chambers to make them aware of this.
LikeLike
I was shocked when I heard it said and had to check the script to ensure I had heard it right.
LikeLike
Those of you who have been following livestream may be relieved that it has malfunctioned so that it cut off Counsel for the developers. It is regrettable that as a result it is unlikely to be available to hear the Inspector’s closing remarks. I alerted him to the position through MBCG Counsel and he asked it to be noted that his remarks should be recorded and posted on the website.
What is not regrettable is being unable to hear the second half of submissions on behalf of the developers. I have sought to resist personal criticism of any of the participants over the last six weeks. But the comments from Richard and Paul are apt. It is difficult to know if he is inherently verbose, enjoys attacking other professionals, or likes the sound of his own voice to such a degree that he failed to realise the potential for causing significant harm to his client’s case through sheer boredom.
LikeLike
What effect do you think yesterday’s government announcement about national house-building policy will have on the outcome of the inquiry? I believe the target for London has actually been reduced, although what it actually being built is far lower even than the new figure.
LikeLike
A matter for substantial discussion yesterday at the last day of the Inquiry. Counsel will be adding it to their Christmas reading list for further submissions. Together with the Richmond Housing Land Supply Position which appears to have been published to coincide with the end of the Inquiry.
LikeLike