New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

[Scoop]

I have already said that I have inside knowledge. I'm sure you are not suggesting that this could only have come from instructing counsel, surely?

[seanie]

Once the Council had confirmed that it would not be going to court, back in December '08, then PPAG could only reasonably expect that they would be the ones to mount any legal challenge. Yet they waited over two-and-half-years. Even though, given the legal argument they've finally submitted, they could've challenged the Council as far back in December '06.

Now if fundraising wasn't going well, due to limited support within the wider community, it's understandable that PPAG may've wanted to postpone a legal action, but that's no justification for a delay of over two-and-a-half-years. Because having made their position crystal clear, the Council can't sit on their hands waiting for threatened legal challenges that don't arise.

[seashell]

[Scoop]

How come the council didn't start building in 2006 then - why the delay?

[Scoop]

[Porty]

[Betty Windsor]

[Porty]

[seanie]

[Porty]

[seashell]

[seashell]

[Scoop]

[Porty]

[seanie]

And a very important, if not sole consideration, is at what point could a legal challenge be made?

The original argument from PPAG was that the Council needed court authority to proceed with the school, in which case a legal action could've been brought as soon as the Council decided not to seek prior permission from the courts in December '08.

If, as now argued by PPAG, it is a legal impossibility for the school to be built on the land, then the site selection in December '06 could've been challenged.

Even if you take the granting of planning permission as a key decision, albeit one that PPAG aren't challenging, they still waited months before launching a legal action. A legal action they'd been threatening and fundraising for since early 2009 at the very latest.

[Porty]

[rmolehusband]

[Scoop]

[seanie]

As I said before;

It's important that decisions can be challenged, and if the disparity in resources discourages that it's potentially harmful, which is why I support the idea of Protective Cost Orders. But reasonable delay is still an important consideration. In public cases like this, it’s prejudicial to good administration for actions not to be brought promptly, because decisions lead to actions with further consequences, some of them financial, and Councils can’t sit around twiddling their thumbs waiting for legal challenges that might never come.

It may well have been convenient for PPAG to delay a challenge for several years whilst they raise funds. But it's not reasonable since the Council can't twiddle their thumbs waiting for legal actions that might never come. Nor can the Council be expected to take themselves to court every time a third party says they should.

The issue is when, legally, PPAG could've brought a legal action, not when it suited them.

[Bob Jefferson]

[seashell]

[seanie]

And the QC representing PPAG now, gave them a legal opinion that they referred to with great frequency back in 2006.

That they've been taking senior legal advice as far back as then is less excuse for the delay, not more.

[seashell]

[Scoop]

[Scoop]

[seanie]

You did use the word perhaps.

Because you were ignorant of whether that had or had not.

I'm not culpable for your ignorance.

[Scoop]

[seashell]

[seanie]

[Scoop]

Really?

[seanie]

Yes. Explain.

[Porty]

[Scoop]

Maybe their "counsel" capped his fees. That's a possibility. It happens. Maybe. Possibilty. . There I go being all ignorant again, Seanie.

[seanie]

[Scoop]