Re: Tick Tock : Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:47 pm  

So we were all assuming after all this time the decision had surely been made.
Now it seems that it perhaps has not yet been made.
Hmmmm.

Re: Tick Tock : Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:50 pm  

jacques wrote:

So we were all assuming after all this time the decision had surely been made.
Now it seems that it perhaps has not yet been made.
Hmmmm.

I'm pretty certain it has been made.

Re: Tick Tock : Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:52 pm  

Khlav Kalash wrote:

Put those straws down fully

As far as i know the SOS's decision is final.

Not according to the article I_A just quoted. Secretary of State dismissed the developer's appeal and went to High Court, where Pickles was asked to redetermine.

Similarly, Secretary of State could agree with developer but people opposing it take it to High Court where they can ask for it to be redetermined.

Like I said, it would probably be futile but it does make me think that if these people in Methley are so opposed to it and have money behind them to burn they'll try and stop it any way they can.

Re: Tick Tock : Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:00 pm  

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote: http://www.planningresource.co.uk/news/1136342/pickles-delays-post-nppf-decision-interchange/ Seems like Eric Pickles office is making a habit of this at the moment! Pickles delays post-NPPF decision on interchange By Jamie Carpenter Wednesday, 13 June 2012 Communities secretary Eric Pickles has delayed his decision on a controversial rail freight interchange near St Albans in Hertfordshire. Pickles had been due to issue his decision on developer Helioslough’s planning appeal for a rail freight interchange at Park Street on or before 13 June. But St Albans City and District Council said in a statement that it had been told that "this is no longer to be the case" and that no new decision date has been set. Pickles’ decision on the interchange had been due by 5 April 2012, but following the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in March he informed all parties that he had postponed his decision to allow the parties time to deal with the implications of the framework. The NPPF introduced a presumption in favour of sustainable development and became a material consideration in planning decisions with immediate effect. St Albans City and District Council said that it had provided its representations to the Department for Communities and Local Government on 16 April. A DCLG spokesman said: "We hope to issue the decision as soon as we can." In September 2010 the secretary of state dismissed Helioslough’s appeal against St Albans City and District Council’s decision to refuse planning permission for the interchange. But Helioslough challenged the secretary of state’s decision in the High Court and on 1 July 2011 a judge quashed the decision and referred the matter back to Pickles to redetermine. St Albans City and District Council had previously rejected two separate applications for the scheme, one in 2009 and one in 2007. So that was 6 days ago, have they had a decision yet?

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote: http://www.planningresource.co.uk/news/1136342/pickles-delays-post-nppf-decision-interchange/ Seems like Eric Pickles office is making a habit of this at the moment! Pickles delays post-NPPF decision on interchange By Jamie Carpenter Wednesday, 13 June 2012 Communities secretary Eric Pickles has delayed his decision on a controversial rail freight interchange near St Albans in Hertfordshire. Pickles had been due to issue his decision on developer Helioslough’s planning appeal for a rail freight interchange at Park Street on or before 13 June. But St Albans City and District Council said in a statement that it had been told that "this is no longer to be the case" and that no new decision date has been set. Pickles’ decision on the interchange had been due by 5 April 2012, but following the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in March he informed all parties that he had postponed his decision to allow the parties time to deal with the implications of the framework. The NPPF introduced a presumption in favour of sustainable development and became a material consideration in planning decisions with immediate effect. St Albans City and District Council said that it had provided its representations to the Department for Communities and Local Government on 16 April. A DCLG spokesman said: "We hope to issue the decision as soon as we can." In September 2010 the secretary of state dismissed Helioslough’s appeal against St Albans City and District Council’s decision to refuse planning permission for the interchange. But Helioslough challenged the secretary of state’s decision in the High Court and on 1 July 2011 a judge quashed the decision and referred the matter back to Pickles to redetermine. St Albans City and District Council had previously rejected two separate applications for the scheme, one in 2009 and one in 2007. So that was 6 days ago, have they had a decision yet?

Re: Tick Tock : Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:02 pm  

Fully wrote:

Khlav Kalash wrote:

Put those straws down fully

As far as i know the SOS's decision is final.

Not according to the article I_A just quoted. Secretary of State dismissed the developer's appeal and went to High Court, where Pickles was asked to redetermine.

Similarly, Secretary of State could agree with developer but people opposing it take it to High Court where they can ask for it to be redetermined.

Like I said, it would probably be futile but it does make me think that if these people in Methley are so opposed to it and have money behind them to burn they'll try and stop it any way they can.

I read it as the High Court ruled on the decision not to take it to a public inquiry, not on the outcome of said PI itself as that is still to be decided.

Re: Tick Tock : Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:06 pm  

Khlav Kalash wrote:

I read it as the High Court ruled on the decision not to take it to a public inquiry, not on the outcome of said PI itself as that is still to be decided.

Not sure on the process but I read it as the developer submitted application, which was refused locally but this was appealed and so taken to the SoS. SoS looked at the plans etc and made a decision that it had been correct decision and so backed the refusal. I believe the SoS looks at appeals too as well as called-in passed applications. Developer wasn't happy with this so took it to High Court who has asked the SoS to go over it again (hence why SoS is making another decision on it).

Re: Tick Tock : Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:20 pm  

Fully wrote: Not sure on the process but I read it as the developer submitted application, which was refused locally but this was appealed and so taken to the SoS. SoS looked at the plans etc and made a decision that it had been correct decision and so backed the refusal. I believe the SoS looks at appeals too as well as called-in passed applications. Developer wasn't happy with this so took it to High Court who has asked the SoS to go over it again (hence why SoS is making another decision on it). some info here: http://www.stalbans.gov.uk/environment-and-planning/planning/railfreight/ but I'm out of my depth now. I don't know if there is a difference between a PI from a planning that has been rejected & appealed and a PI from an objection to passing plans.

Fully wrote: Not sure on the process but I read it as the developer submitted application, which was refused locally but this was appealed and so taken to the SoS. SoS looked at the plans etc and made a decision that it had been correct decision and so backed the refusal. I believe the SoS looks at appeals too as well as called-in passed applications. Developer wasn't happy with this so took it to High Court who has asked the SoS to go over it again (hence why SoS is making another decision on it). some info here: http://www.stalbans.gov.uk/environment-and-planning/planning/railfreight/ but I'm out of my depth now. I don't know if there is a difference between a PI from a planning that has been rejected & appealed and a PI from an objection to passing plans.

Re: Tick Tock : Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:22 pm  

coco the fullback wrote: some info here: http://www.stalbans.gov.uk/environment-and-planning/planning/railfreight/ but I'm out of my depth now. I don't know if there is a difference between a PI from a planning that has been rejected & appealed and a PI from an objection to passing plans. Having read the Planning Website, a public inquiry is in the main held for both called-in applications and appeals.

coco the fullback wrote: some info here: http://www.stalbans.gov.uk/environment-and-planning/planning/railfreight/ but I'm out of my depth now. I don't know if there is a difference between a PI from a planning that has been rejected & appealed and a PI from an objection to passing plans. Having read the Planning Website, a public inquiry is in the main held for both called-in applications and appeals.

Re: Tick Tock : Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:57 pm  

Fully wrote:

Not sure on the process but I read it as the developer submitted application, which was refused locally but this was appealed and so taken to the SoS. SoS looked at the plans etc and made a decision that it had been correct decision and so backed the refusal. I believe the SoS looks at appeals too as well as called-in passed applications. Developer wasn't happy with this so took it to High Court who has asked the SoS to go over it again (hence why SoS is making another decision on it).

FYI

8. CHALLENGING DECISIONS AND MAKING COMPLAINTS
8.1 The High Court is the only authority that can require
reconsideration of an Inspector’s or Secretary of State’s decision.
Applications to the High Court to challenge decisions must be
made within 6 weeks from the date of the Inspector’s decision on
the appeal.

Re: Tick Tock : Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:59 pm  

Fully wrote:

Having read the Planning Website, a public inquiry is in the main held for both called-in applications and appeals.

That's an appeal against the local authority, not an appeal against the SoS ruling following a PI. It won't apply in our case and the only option open to those against NM would be a judicial review - i.e. to question the procedure itself - not the decision.