To misquote Oliver Hardy:
The Honourable Mr. Justice Holgate has ordered that in the matter of applications for Planning Statutory Review:
1. POW Campaign Ltd – v- Waverley Borough Council and Dunsfold Airport Ltd
2. CPRE Surrey -v- Waverley Borough Council
3. POW Campaign Ltd -v- Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government
The three applications be consolidated and heard together, at an oral hearing, as soon as possible after 25 June 2018 because he considers this to be the most efficient way of dealing with the applications.
The Judge has noted that there is considerable overlap in the legal arguments raised in the claims by POW and CPRE and a good deal of the factual and policy context is common to all three claims. He has also decreed that one Judge should hear all of the matters at the permission stage and one Judge should also hold any substantive hearing in relation to any claims granted permission to proceed. And, whether the claims are consolidated or not, the hearings must take place in the same hearing window to avoid inefficient use of judicial resources.
Mr. Justice Holgate concludes by saying priority must be given in the list of the applications to the availability of a Judge and not to the availability of any counsel presently instructed. Which, in short, means The Stinch, Rumpole and Wayne Beglan, who acted on behalf of POW, the Dunsfold Developer, and Waverley Borough Council respectively, may not star in the blockbusting sequel. It’s rather like a film studio killing off the leading man when he tries to up his fee for the sequel!
It remains to be seen if those bit-part-players, Charles William Orange Esq (AKA OJ) and Nik Pidgeon (AKA Not-in-my-Columbier), will rock up for the latest round.
However, we have heard from one of the herd at Protect Our Waverley that they are JUBILANT and cannot wait to get their days/weeks/ in court.
As the two above are among the key architects of PoW & the Parishes’ case against the Dunsfold Developer one would expect them to be preening in front row seats but neither have been seen in public since they were outed, around the time of the Dunsfold Inquiry, as Nimby Developers who, having spent years parking their concrete mixers in other peoples’ backyards, now want to move in on their own patch and dig up the village greens of Awfold and Hascombe in preference to seeing the brownfields of Dunsfold Airfield developed. KERCHING!
Reading Mr Justice Holgate’s direction, whilst sipping a glass or two of Silent Pool’s excellent G&T, we at Waverley Web, found ourselves re-visiting the words of that elder statesman of the three barristers at the recent Inquiry into Dunsfold Park, Christopher Katkowski QC, AKA Rumpole: “The very fact that the Rule 6 Parties [otherwise known as POW & the Parishes] speak in such terms shows what the planning system has to grapple with and face down here!”
We can only hope that the High Court Judge on whose bench these cases land will be up to grappling with and tackling the Nimbyism which has polluted the waters of Waverley.
But – and purely in the interests of fairness, you understand – we must give equal airtime to The Stinch, on behalf of POW and the Parishes, whom we awarded Quote of the Day on the first day of the Dunsfold Inquiry, when he announced, in suitably sombre tones…
If only! How most of us wish that were true. All we do know is that, despite those famous first words from The Stinch, Waverley taxpayers are looking down the barrel of yet another review of the Dunsfold decision and the Local Plan!
In company with the Brexit Remoaners, POW and the Parishes won’t take NO for an answer – they’re just going to keep on pushing this ball uphill and down dale until someone somewhere, anyone anywhere, agrees with them and overturns the decision to build on the biggest brownfield site in the borough and allows ‘Your Waverley’ to continue concreting over the countryside.
And the Government has the cheek to wonder why developers aren’t building enough houses quickly enough … and why they are so expensive!
Yet another case of you couldn’t make it up!!!
One wonders why not build on brown field sites rather than pumping atmospheric pollution in congested towns with houses built for profit rather than affordability?
Is anyone fool enough to believe that 4000 people living in a field at DP will not need to get in a car to drive, and pollute, to get to a station, a supermarket, a school and a job? 8 miles from any of these means >16 miles of travelling per day per person. That is the definition of environmentally unsustainable. Very much more than polution for those living in brownfield near infrastructure.
How about standing up for the other villages in the East that are beginning to resemble a developer’s playground?
on June 14, 2018 at 9:20 pm WW said:
“How about standing up for the other villages in the East that are beginning to resemble a developer’s playground?”
Why don’t you? What have you done to make a difference? You pathetically bleated earlier “what can a blogger from Farnham do to protest? ”. The same as POW! They are just individuals who got off their seats to do something about inept local government. Yet you don’t to do anything and bleat about how they haven’t come to your rescue and fought your battles for you. You are pathetic – unless, of course. you are not who you pretend to be, and everything PoW, CPRE, the Parishes, and the Courts do is the reason you are so angry, abusive and reactionary. Because millions of your money depends on it.
Tell POW. The Protect Our Waverley Group. And the double standard CPRE organisation which tells the world to build on brownfield sites – except in Waverley!!
Mmm. WW are you back off holiday? Seems your obsession with Dunsfold is at fever pitch. Someone/ Court upset you?
Just look at tour tag cloud on the right margin : Dunsfold, POW and the Local Plan dominate way above anything in your posts – that is obsession and paranoia, especially for someone that declares to be just a blogger from Farnham. We know who you really are.
Ps, when you climb down off your horse, answer me why the taxpayer is stumping up for Wayne Beglan to represent when Kitkowskis sitting next to him defending WBC?
We know absolutely nothing about the internal working of Dunsfold Airport or its legal representative’s and have no idea who is representing whom in the High Court. However, it would appear you do, so no doubt you are POW in the disguise of our children”s favourite pig?
As for being paranoid. We write about Dunsfold because we get more feedback, privately and in the public forum on this than on any other subject. This affects the tag cloud. Stop commenting, and it will eventually disappear! We have correspondents in every town in the borough – except one! The Court hearing doesn’t upset us, we are just mere voting fodder watching the ratepayers money going down the pan. Money that could be used for important and much-needed projects around this borough.
We could censor your comments but have no wish to do so.
The tag cloud relates to original posts not comments. The PR agenda is set by you. Spin again. We don’t believe your protests.
WW said: “We have … no idea who is representing whom in Court…”
You stated all 3 sixty minutes earlier in your original blog post! You really need to get your story straight in you rants if you are going to lie convincingly. Either you know nothing about the details, or you have immediate insider privilige information – which is it?