EastSheenMatters

Given that the Government moved the goalposts on the last hearing day of the appeals to strengthen the probability of success for local authority plans for development, it was perhaps inevitable that the Inspector would uphold the appeals.

As a former Tribunal Judge myself I am always hesitant to criticise judicial decisions. I know from experience how difficult they are. However…..

As can be seen from the previous postings the Inspector has clearly taken the view that this development should go ahead, not least no doubt in view of recent changes in central government guidance. Any judge will inevitably draft reasons with that conclusion in mind, albeit having views on individual aspects of the case.

A picture presents itself that wherever he could the Inspector has found in favour of arguments put forward by the Council and / or the developers. That is not to say those arguments are without force. Where he has had to recognise harm, he has done so on the basis that it is not significant, and thus below the newly imposed standards. Where the cases have been at their weakest, that is is on educational provision, traffic and transport, local public safety, affordable housing and public opinion, he has diminished or ignored opposing arguments.

But… the bottom line is that one can take three views of judicial decisions: agree, disagree but accept the outcome, disagree on grounds which make an appeal or application for judicial review possible.

My current view on a first reading of the decision is that it is unlikely to be the subject of a successful appeal or judicial review. To that view one has to add a number of other factors: the further delay in finalising plans for the area, the costs involved and the continuing division of thinking in the neighbourhood. But if anyone has deep enough poclets…………….

We should not of course forget that the Minister still has to take a decision about whether to fund the building of the 1200 pupil secondary school. If the Government does not provide the funding, that part of the development will not go ahead, as the Council made it clear they could not fund it. And will Reselton wish to proceed given the boardroom arguments reported and, on their own account the high risks involved for limited profit.

Now is probably the time to seek assurances from the Council that they will consult the neighbourhood more effectively than they have done over the last several years, and that they and the developers are more open about difficulties as well as the benefits they always seek to promote.