Audley Avenue -Court of Appeal decision

A member of Civic Society was in the Court of Appeal on Wednesday so we can provide some further details for residents from the judgement delivered by the Court of Appeal.
T&W and St. Modwen had raised basically 10 points of appeal from the initial decision of the Inspector, Christina Downes, from the Planning Inquiry held May 2012 and the decision of Mr. Justice Turner in the High Ct. in June 2013, when he affirmed the decision of the Inspector.
The Ct. of Appeal dismissed all the grounds of the appeal i.e they did not support any of the appeal points argued and found that Christina Downes had been correct both in the way she interpreted and applied the law and in the manner and processes she applied around the Inquiry.
In very simple terms, the Ct. of Appeal said was she correct in her reasoning that the Audley Avenue site was sequentially preferable to the Station Road site; that Audley Avenue as being ‘previously developed land’ (i.e. ‘brownfield’), should under T&W policy be developed in preference to ‘greenfield’ Station Road (where the Court made reference to the Village Green application and that the land was clearly a much loved and well used piece of land by local residents and not just agricultural land which a path happened to cross); that for the Section 106 money to be paid by the developer of the Audley Avenue site for road improvements basically relating to the Station Road developments, these were not complaint with the relevant regulations and that she was correct in excluding them as not being linked to the Audley Avenue development issues.
When the full written judgment of the court is published we will provide a link by which residents can read the judgement in full.

To clarify a point from the Shropshire Star, legal counsel representing T&W and St. Modwen did not at the hearing ask the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (i.e. the old House of Lords) but we are informed that they can apply in writing for leave in a similar manner to that which they did following the decision in the High Ct. This is not to say that they will lodge an appeal but that they might have an opportunity , if they so wished, to try and persuade the Supreme Ct. to allow an appeal.

Finally, in case people are confused as to why the judgment did not take some 8 weeks to be delivered, as per one of our earlier postings, in effect the Court was so unconvinced by the points of appeal that they did not need the 8 weeks to consider, they felt able to give judgement after the first day of the hearing.
We would stress that in simplifying the arguments and process above we have given only a simple summary of what was a judgment which took over an hour for the judge to read and, therefore, in no way have all the points raised or issues argued by the parties been reflected in this short summary. These can only be seen from the full terms of the judgement when it is released.
We will provide further information on related matters in due course.

Speak Your Mind