This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/davehillblog/2012/oct/12/earsl-court-project-legal-challenge-go-ahead
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Earls Court project: legal challenge to Tory flagship's redevelopment plan wins go ahead | Earls Court project: legal challenge to Tory flagship's redevelopment plan wins go ahead |
| (about 3 hours later) | |
| I reported in June on the launch of a legal challenge by the tenants and residents associations (TRAs) of the so-called "people's estates" - the West Kensington and Gibbs Green - to the ambitions of their borough, the Tory darling Hammersmith and Fulham (H&F), to demolish their homes as part of the controversial, 77-acre, £8b Earls Court project redevelopment scheme. On Thursday, His Honour Judge Sycamore formally responded to their application for a judicial review as follows: | I reported in June on the launch of a legal challenge by the tenants and residents associations (TRAs) of the so-called "people's estates" - the West Kensington and Gibbs Green - to the ambitions of their borough, the Tory darling Hammersmith and Fulham (H&F), to demolish their homes as part of the controversial, 77-acre, £8b Earls Court project redevelopment scheme. On Thursday, His Honour Judge Sycamore formally responded to their application for a judicial review as follows: |
| I am satisfied that the threshold for permission is crossed and that this is a case full consideration at a substantive hearing. The question as to what constitutes a development plan document and the lawfulness of the defendants' master plan for the area is clearly arguable and should be considered at a substantive hearing. | I am satisfied that the threshold for permission is crossed and that this is a case full consideration at a substantive hearing. The question as to what constitutes a development plan document and the lawfulness of the defendants' master plan for the area is clearly arguable and should be considered at a substantive hearing. |
| Those defendants are H&F together with its neighbour Royal Kensington and Chelsea, where a portion of the proposed redevelopment area lies. There are also three "interested parties" for whom this decision will be unwelcome: EC Properties, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the property giant Capco, the two boroughs' developer partner; Transport for London, which owns much of the land in question; and the Greater London Authority, which is effectively London Mayor Boris Johnson. The mayor is a big fan of H&F, has vigorously supported the Earls Court scheme in the past, and seems highly unlikely to raise no objection to it when it lands on his desk, probably later this year. | |
| Judge Sycamore's "case management directions" include that any wishing to contest the TRAs' claim "must file and serve detailed grounds" for contesting it within 35 days. A lot of lawyers will be earning a lot of loot in the next few weeks. Those defendants will be paying them. What an expensive bit of bulldozing this Earls Court project is turning out to be. | Judge Sycamore's "case management directions" include that any wishing to contest the TRAs' claim "must file and serve detailed grounds" for contesting it within 35 days. A lot of lawyers will be earning a lot of loot in the next few weeks. Those defendants will be paying them. What an expensive bit of bulldozing this Earls Court project is turning out to be. |