Hello

I've just found the verdict on line - if you have the stomach for a lot of legalese you can view it here

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/4137.html

However the big news is the last line

"It follows that ground (d) also fails. I do not need to reach a view on the additional matters raised by the Second Respondent. The appeal is dismissed."

Now it is entirely possible that Mr Djurberg won't let matters rest here and seek leave for consideration by ever higher courts but this is a significant step!

Views: 642

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks Gareth,  Will believe it when it happens  or should that be if.  Thanks anyway for the update.

Best wishes for Xmas and the New year.

Well I read it, several times, and if I understand it correctly he was appealing against a decision that would enforce him to remove only a certain number of the piles and pontoons?

The rest of them are allowed to remain, is that the gist of it?

 

Hello Simon

Those were the parts of the Planning Inspector's ruling (handed down after the full public inquiry) that the appellant sought to contest. It's important to remember that much of the points raised by the Inspector still stand in addition to these contested points - the key one is that residential development at this site is explicitly precluded.

So yes, this part of the verdict only applies to those pilings, but there were other issues which were dealt with at earlier stages. It's one of 'those' cases.

And it's very much the residential issue which lies at the heart of the case. Surely nobody would be so desperate to develop 'a working boatyard' on this site. There's a business there, no doubt, but not one worth going to court over with the associated legal costs. Barristers don't come cheap and the Treasury Solicitor who represented the Government again would cost a pretty penny - and of course these are all costs which have been incurred. But a multi-million pound residential marina? That would possibly be a prize worth fighting for.


 
Simon Gibbs said:

Well I read it, several times, and if I understand it correctly he was appealing against a decision that would enforce him to remove only a certain number of the piles and pontoons?

The rest of them are allowed to remain, is that the gist of it?

 

Like Simon I read the whole decision too and was some what disappointed to see that this applied only to some of the piles and pontoons; this may be "one of 'those' cases" and there may well not be a multi-million pound residential marina at stake so would not be worth the case being taken further hopefully but what with the illegally moored boats still a little further down the river (separate issue I know)  and this fiasco our beloved riverside of Hampton is slowly changing in to some what of an eye sore and needs protecting for all. 

Hello Heather

As I say, this judgement can't be viewed in isolation - there are other considerations which were dealt with in the report from the public inquiry

I think 'one of those cases' is a fair description of this one as it is incredibly convoluted - however the long and short of it (and this is very much a bare bones description)

1) Development Occurred - some lawful , some apparently not

2) The council challenged the apparent unlawful development and it was found not to be acceptable. A decision was served along with an enforcement notice.

3) SOME of the decisions were then challenged at appeal. Also some of the enforcement notices were then challenged - because of this ALL enforcement action was suspended pending result of the appeal

4) Then before the appeals were heard some more applications went in, some lawful some not. Again the new decisions and pending enforcement notices were subject to appeal

5) Because there was an unholy mess by this stage it was decided that the only course of action was to settle the whole business at Public Enquiry - this is very rare within the borough. While the enquiry was ongoing all enforcement action was suspended.

6) The Enquiry gave its verdict - some in favour of the appellant, the majority in favour of the council.

 7) Some of the findings of the inspector's enquiry were then challenged in the Royal Courts of Justice and guess what happened to the enforcement proceedings while all that was ongoing?

So a very tangled state of affairs. Hopefully we will start to see some resolution very soon - unless, as I say, there is further legal challenge.


 
Heather said:

Like Simon I read the whole decision too and was some what disappointed to see that this applied only to some of the piles and pontoons; this may be "one of 'those' cases" and there may well not be a multi-million pound residential marina at stake so would not be worth the case being taken further hopefully but what with the illegally moored boats still a little further down the river (separate issue I know)  and this fiasco our beloved riverside of Hampton is slowly changing in to some what of an eye sore and needs protecting for all. 

Hello Gareth

I have followed this case with keen interest and while I am pleased to see the latest decision and that of previous decisions I still say that the riverside needs protecting for all and for it not to become an eye sore like so many other areas along the Thames have become over the years. There always seems to be constant problems with people flouting rules and regulations to just obtain what they want for their own personal gain. I just wish that the riverside would be protected as a historical site as part of the history and surrounding area of our lovely Hampton/ Hampton Court for all to enjoy. I remember not that many years ago when the riverside was opened up for all but now has parts which have become  no go areas where the unauthorized moorings are where debris and such like is strewed all over the river bank.  So yes like you say it is a tangled state of affairs but yes hopefully we will see some resolution very soon.

The general problem of weak control powers (and/or weak enforcement authorities) has allowed this situation to develop along with the growth of water gypsys mooring everywhere. The half sunk boats on the bank between Taggs Island and Hampton are an eyesore and hazard but who is the responsible authority for cleaning it up? Obviously the owner but for sure they have gone missing. Maybe the riparian owner? Maybe the EA but they don't have any spare money. This is an area of legislation that needs looking at and strengthening. And the obvious person to champion it is our MP. Vince - over to you.......

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2017   Created by Matt D.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service