The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 151

The Court did not take long to decide in our favour. 

The Order Decision dated 11th December 2009 is quashed. That was good news but when it came to the Schedule to the Consent Order there were two points at issue we could not agree on; they were that,

1. The case is withdrawn

2. No order as to costs.

However, after a few exchanges of correspondence, the points were resolved as follows:

1. The parties to make submissions on the terms of ending the proceedings and the court to decide the final order of this claim.  The parties submissions to be filed with the court and served on the other side by 21st July 2010.

2. The parties to make submissions on the basis of costs by 21st July 2010.

By the 10th September, the Deputy Master of the Crown Office had placed his stamp for leave on our Judicial Review claim.
2010 Judicial Review for PI 2009 

Later, the Planning Inspectorate asked me how I wished to proceed. I had the choice of a local Hearing or another Public Inquiry.  I really couldn’t see any point in going through another Public Inquiry, so I chose a local Hearing.
2010_12_08 Nigel Spicer to Planning Inspectorate 

However, the Hampshire County Council decided otherwise and insisted that nothing but another public inquiry would be conducted. In these circumstances, I wondered why I had initially been given a choice.

On December 3rd, 2010, we made an offer. Would Hampshire County Council consider withdrawing its objection to the previous Order? We now had a coalition government with an emphasis on ‘localism’ and ‘the Big Society,’ and, importantly, a downturn in government grants to local government. Included were letters from my MP, Damian Hinds, and Norman Baker.
2010_12_03 Nigel Spicer to HCC
2010 Norman Baker on sustainable transport 

Next time:  to be continued.

All 'TCHCC' Parts so far