To be fair Paul the article has changed a fair bit since yesterday.  However my 'tack' was spelt out very clearly - I simply felt it was wrong to publish an article which at the time 75% of which was basically an appeal to "give us more money to challenge this judgement" which actually providing readers with the judgement for them to review. As I subsequently said, if the boot was on the other foot and an article was published informing you that the Council had granted planning permission for a huge development without any kind of public consultation, no link to a committee report etc. the public would quite rightly be up in arms. I agree with the rest of your post however, in this business you should choose to fight your battles carefully.  I am regularly asked to act on behalf of objectors, residents groups and such like, and I'll only take the projects on if I feel (a) my planning expertise is going to add weight to the case being presented, e.g. if the key issues are purely subjective design considerations then appointing me is a waste of your money, and (b) if I really feel there is a compelling/strong argument to be made.  And that's just to take on an objection, whilst I have acted for clients in the High Court to do so for a third party is extremely rare and I would have to believe there was unequivocal evidence of a legal failing. In this case to me there has never been anything put forward to suggest such a failing, even now when I read Simon's quotes in the article all I really hear is "we don't like this development on subjective grounds and can't believe the Council decided otherwise", which isn't  a ground to seek a High Court challenge on. But, as I say, each to their own, however as a local resident and a planning consultant I personally feel that sometimes local groups don't properly consider how, in going down the routes that they do, they risk their own credibility for future battles.  Which pretty much ties in with the final sentence of Paul's post.

Entire Thread

Topic	Date Posted	Posted By
Empire House	28/10/15 15:23:00	Adam Beamish
Re:Empire House	28/10/15 19:30:00	Carl Wynne
Re:Re:Empire House	28/10/15 22:03:00	Adam Beamish
Re:Empire House	28/10/15 22:02:00	Simon Kverndal
Re:Re:Empire House	28/10/15 22:07:00	Adam Beamish
Re:Re:Empire House	28/10/15 22:23:00	Carl Wynne
Re:Re:Re:Empire House	28/10/15 22:35:00	Adam Beamish
Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 00:24:00	Basil Finnis
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 00:53:00	Robert Fish
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 07:58:00	Paul Corcoran
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 09:23:00	Adam Beamish
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 09:45:00	Loraine Pemberton
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 11:07:00	Adam Beamish
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 11:10:00	Carl Wynne
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 11:45:00	Loraine Pemberton
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 11:09:00	Francis Rowe
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 11:38:00	Paul Corcoran
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 12:06:00	Adam Beamish
Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 09:21:00	James Holmes-Siedle
Re:Empire House	29/10/15 10:07:00	Jason Maddocks
Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 10:17:00	Carl Wynne
Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 10:31:00	Adam Beamish
Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 12:34:00	Jason Maddocks
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 13:13:00	Richard Greenhough

Forum Home