New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

[seanie]

A view on Judicial Review looking at it from more of a developer's perspective.

Delay - a critical question

How long does a challenger have to bring proceedings (or put it another way, how long needs to have elapsed, before you can be confident you can crush your opponent with a defence of "too late")? In England & Wales, the rule, essentially, is that an application has to be made "promptly" but in any event within three months. In Scotland there is no such specific time limit, the Scots' Courts working on the incomprehensibly titled concept of "mora, taciturnity and acquiescence". Delay itself is not enough to ensure an application is rejected; it must accompanied by something more, most usually prejudice either to general administration or to a party involved in the process (such as the consent holder).

So, what does a developer need to argue "mora, taciturnity and acquiescence"? It may turn on whether there have been pre-action communications forewarning of a challenge. Much will depend, because of the issue of prejudice, on what has been done by the developer on receiving the consent, e.g. where expenditure has been incurred, commitments entered into, etc.

[seanie]

The issue of 'prejudice' is important, and again actions are relevant.

If someone threatens legal action and a developer proceeds regardless, then if an action quickly follows it's the developer's own hard luck if it causes aborted costs or delays. But if someone threatens legal action and then nothing happens, a developer's entitled to take the lack of action as acquiescence and proceed. It's hardly fair to expect a developer to sit around indefinitely waiting for a threatened legal action that may or may not come. And if a challenge comes so late that the developer has incurred significant expenses, then it's fair that the delay can be a basis for dismissal.

[Betty Windsor]

I agree with Bob. Dont understand why the PPAG posse feel the need to personalise the debate. Even seashell, an innocent observer , has endured suspiciom about her "motives".

Innocent bystander or agent of the state?

[Bob Jefferson]

I agree with Bob. Dont understand why the PPAG posse feel the need to personalise the debate. Even seashell, an innocent observer , has endured suspiciom about her "motives".

Innocent bystander or agent of the state?

Agent of the state? Are you serious?

[Betty Windsor]

I agree with Bob. Dont understand why the PPAG posse feel the need to personalise the debate. Even seashell, an innocent observer , has endured suspiciom about her "motives".

And Porty, given what you have said about Steven an Diana this is coming across a bit hypocritical.

[Makaveli]

Agent of the state? Seriously I just about fell off my seat when I read that one!!!

This is hilarious stuff.

[Porty]

What have i said about Stephen and Diana?

[Betty Windsor]

Do you know anyone even interested in this debate, let alone willing to take the time to post, who is not from the area or who does not have children at PHS. In my experience the only people who do not want to hold the council to account for their actions in this case are the parents who have children who will directly benefit from a new school and the council officials themselves of course.
Given that she does not want to reveal her true identity we have no way of verifying that she is indeed what she says she is.
She could be absolutely anybody.

[Makaveli]

Maybe she is a he?

What if she/he is grooming you? Worrying stuff indeed.

[seanie]

Was there not a black helicopter overhead the other day?

[Epykat]

Maybe she is a he?

What if she/he is grooming you? Worrying stuff indeed.

I'd be worried if I was trying to groom Betty.....

[Makaveli]

Why - is she hirsute?

[Bob Jefferson]

Given that she does not want to reveal her true identity we have no way of verifying that she is indeed what she says she is.

She could be absolutely anybody.

[Makaveli]

Thanks Bob - I have just had to convince my wife I am not watching tales of the unexpected on the laptop!!!!

[Bob Jefferson]

we have no way of verifying that she is indeed what she says she is.

[Puerto bella]

What have i said about Stephen and Diana?

Are you serious?
You're obsessed with them.

[seanie]

Anyhoo...

Let's consider the issue of delay, and the importance of prompt action, given the sequence of events.

In December 2008 a full Council meeting confirms the intention to proceed with building the school on the park, without prior authority of the courts. At the same meeting a PPAG delegation announce they intend to take legal action. So the Council has been given fair warning of a legal challenge, and then?

Er...not much.

Apart from a letter to the Evening News nothing happens till 14 months later when, knowing that it has already been decided not to go to court, PPAG write to the Council suggesting a 'joint action'.

Entirely predictably, the Council respond that as per their decision more than a year earlier they will not go to court. This is re-affirmed at a full Council meeting in March '10. A meeting informed by PPAG that they intend to take legal action.

So again the Council is given fair warning. And with considerable alacrity PPAG, a mere 6 months later, confirm in writing that they intend to launch a legal action. Just in case the Council hadn't heard them in March.

Or December 2008.

Again the Council's been given fair warning. Really they shouldn't proceed any further knowing there's an impending legal challenge. And sure enough, a mere 6 months later, in March '11, PPAG do indeed do something...

PPAG write to the Council suggesting a 'joint action'.

Do any of you have a sense of deja vu?

And when the Council reply in April '11 that no, as previously explained, they have no intention of going to court, PPAG leap into action.

They wait 3 months before launching a legal action.

The legal action they'd been threatening for over two and a half years.

[seanie]

I think that pattern of events isn't so much mora, aquiescence and taciturnity.

It's more taking the piss.

[Betty Windsor]

I think that pattern of events isn't so much mora, aquiescence and taciturnity.

It's more taking the piss.

Is it fair to say then Sean that you are not really interested in holding the council to account? Your only concern is getting a new school in a nice parkland setting and you don't give a monkey's about the fact that it is the people from the poorest section of our community that are the biggest losers. You do not seem at all concerned that the council has already reneged on the promise of compensatory land.
I know I've said it before but do you not think that smacks of self interest?

[Makaveli]

But nobody uses the park.

And this 'poorest section of the community' that you are on about can they not get themselves down to the Figgy park which has something for everyone?

[Betty Windsor]

But nobody uses the park.
/
And this 'poorest section of the community' that you are on about can they not get themselves down to the Figgy park which has something for everyone?

That's nor really true is it. And as for getting themselves down to the Figgy that could be problematic with small children or if you have mobility issues.
I take it from your comments that you don't think the people of Magdalene and Christians deserve any green space, that you would seek to deprive them of the little they do have?

[seanie]

I think we've been through an exhaustive and thorough process.

There was a extensive consultation on site options, involving the community, after which the democratically elected Cllrs selected the site. There was a long prioritisation process, again open to public input. There was a lengthy pre-planning consultation and then a planning process during which more local people supported than objected to the proposals.

And at no time did the Council 'promise' to provide compensatory land. The decided to investigate the possibility of compensatory land being provided prior to the proposals going ahead, albeit informed by an assessment of the usage of the park and loss of amenity. As it turned out there were no suitable sites for compensation, and given the low usage of the existing park it was decided that amenity could be retained and enhanced by improvements, but the Council has still kept the idea of compensatory open space up for consideration, including the existing school site.

It's more a question of what land becomes available when, and whether it's cost effective. And they didn't want to delay a much needed new school waiting on that.

[Makaveli]

If they can get from Magdalene and Christians to Porty Park they can get themselves to Figgy Park.

Your argument would hold more water were it not for the fact that everytime I go past Porty Park there is no-one on it.

[seanie]

But nobody uses the park.
/
And this 'poorest section of the community' that you are on about can they not get themselves down to the Figgy park which has something for everyone?

That's nor really true is it. And as for getting themselves down to the Figgy that could be problematic with small children or if you have mobility issues.
I take it from your comments that you don't think the people of Magdalene and Christians deserve any green space, that you would seek to deprive them of the little they do have?

Well dog walkers use it, but nobody much else. And the dog walkers will still be able to use it when the new school is built. There will still be the mature trees, public greenspace, as well as improved paths. You'll still be able to enjoy the views of Arthur's Seat or across to the Forth. And there will be far better pitches, that are freely available to the public.

It's a win-win situation.

[Betty Windsor]

And there will be far better pitches, that are freely available to the public.

It's a win-win situation.

I've not been convinced by your arguements that they will be freely available.

[wangi]

It's not seanie's argument - it's what has been committed to during the planning process.

[seanie]

It's not an argument. It's simply what's been clearly stated as the intention, as a matter of public record.

[Porty]

What have i said about Stephen and Diana?

Are you serious?
You're obsessed with them.

What?

[rathbone]

Agent of the state? Seriously I just about fell off my seat when I read that one!!!

This is hilarious stuff.

This is certainly my favourite thread for entertainment value.

As I quoted on another thread: “ In the topography of intellection, I should say that what we call knowledge is actually ignorance surrounded by laughter.” (Charles Fort)............ and I think that goes for the protagonists on both sides of this case. You should take some time to go back and read some of the things you wrote. It's a hoot.

[Epykat]

It's a hoot.

Maybe it should be published then it could be included in curriculum for excrement.

[Porty]

I'm going to start a Seashell speculation thread.

[Porty]

It's a hoot.

Maybe it should be published then it could be included in curriculum for excrement.

[Porty]

escuse me - who are you lumping in with PPAG contingent?

Everyone who contributed at PPAG fundraising events, did you?

[Epykat]

escuse me - who are you lumping in with PPAG contingent?

Everyone who contributed at PPAG fundraising events, did you?

Guilty M'lud.......

[Puerto bella]

escuse me - who are you lumping in with PPAG contingent?

Everyone who contributed at PPAG fundraising events, did you?

not a bean your honour.