|
Post by b170 on Feb 24, 2021 10:05:06 GMT
B170 M0RE OF EVERYTHING CROSSED.
BOB CARTER
|
|
|
Post by PB on Feb 24, 2021 13:44:39 GMT
Thank you to all who crossed fingers, toes, and lent all their hopes to Blackbushe Airport's successful outcome following the Court of Appeal hearing.
The Hearing has now drawn to its conclusions and we must await the Lord and Lady Judges decisions. No time scale, but we'll know about them in due course. There is no point in prejudging the conclusion that might be drawn from the past two days in 'remote' Court.
The basis of the proceedings was once again the entanglement stemming from what is, or is not, within the curtilage of a building or indeed the other way round. I take away the QC for Blackbushe's statement that if a building (The Terminal) was 'lawful' at the time of Common registration then it may be deregistered. Indeed, the Terminal's construction was lawful. The question under endless consideration then comes to curtilage and whether the Airport land is curtilage of the Terminal or if the Terminal is in the curtilage of the Airport's expansive area. This gives rises to the question of size and whether curtilage can take in the expanse of an airport or whether it relates to the smallness of a dwelling and a smaller garden..
Participants were QC for HCC, legal representation of the Open Spaces Society, representation speaking for Peter Tipton whose property has Common rights involving Yateley Common, and our own Douglas Edwards QC who again put up a powerful case for favourable consideration by the Judges.
PB
|
|
|
Post by rj on Feb 25, 2021 13:58:58 GMT
From what I heard (having missed most of the first morning) it was very much a replay of the last case. Neither side had a killer argument, and the airport was largely irrelevant in the legal arguments on curtlage. Curtlage has never been legally defined in terms of size and make up so this is a test case on the vaugeness of the term.
|
|
|
Post by rocky14 on Feb 25, 2021 14:50:12 GMT
From what I heard (having missed most of the first morning) it was very much a replay of the last case. Neither side had a killer argument, and the airport was largely irrelevant in the legal arguments on curtlage. Curtlage has never been legally defined in terms of size and make up so this is a test case on the vaugeness of the term. Yes, a nebulous concept in law is 'curtilage' since it has only common law definition, although there are some leading precedents for guidance. This means that each disputed 'curtilage' has to go before the court. What is 'curtilage', is subject to a huge amount of legal argument - as mentioned each case is different, if only marginally - which, once matters start heading 'upstairs', the already scant coffers start to haemorrhage. HCC will be well aware of this! Is it?
|
|
|
Post by PB on Feb 25, 2021 20:41:46 GMT
From what I heard (having missed most of the first morning) it was very much a replay of the last case. Neither side had a killer argument, and the airport was largely irrelevant in the legal arguments on curtlage. Curtlage has never been legally defined in terms of size and make up so this is a test case on the vaugeness of the term. Yes, a nebulous concept in law is 'curtilage' since it has only common law definition, although there are some leading precedents for guidance. This means that each disputed 'curtilage' has to go before the court. What is 'curtilage', is subject to a huge amount of legal argument - as mentioned each case is different, if only marginally - which, once matters start heading 'upstairs', the already scant coffers start to haemorrhage. HCC will be well aware of this! Is it? It is perhaps interesting that the two Hampshire County Councillors listed as "Other Interested Parties" at this week's Court of Appeal proceedings and consistent antagonists of the Blackbushe situation played no part in the two day hearing. They did not show at the Judicial Review last year neither did they stay to the conclusion of the Planning Inquiry held in April, 2019. I questioned Councillor Simpson during one of the past Blackbushe Airport Consultative Committee Meetings as to HCC and their intentions regarding Blackbushe. How could they justify the massive legal expense of hearings in the high courts? HCC are short of money necessitating £80million in cutbacks over a two year period, Hampshire people will suffer accordingly.. Coun Simpson's explanation was a vast County Council multi million war chest for fighting legal battle to which he apparently felt no twinge of concern as to this 'war chest' being plundered to ground Blackbushe and the benefits she holds in store. No answer as to "Why"? Just the old story that the land might become a business park akin perhaps to the one they approved to replace the site of the US Navy hangar. If the Blackbushe case is not concluded to the benefit of Blackbushe following this week's Court of Appeal hearing the next step will be the Supreme Court. The legal cost mountain will reach ever upward, one assumes Hampshire will yet again be in their corner ready for a fight where the knock out blow may well be in prospect. But who will deliver it, and who will pay the bill? The Blackbushe dream would be well in place by now following the Planning Inspector's decision in 2019 that de-registration of the parcel of Blackbushe Common Land was approved. Imagine, but because of Hampshire County Council's filed objection to the decision the sixty year saga drags on and on and.... This must be a public interest story, yet somehow it escapes the limelight.
|
|