In last Thursday’s edition of the Leatherhead Advertiser (19th Sept.) we had the now well-established arguments for and against the Longshot development of the Chirkley estate rehearsed yet again. Once again Longshot trotted out their “leading planning QC, Christopher Katkowski,” claiming the Judge had reached a flawed decision.
But Martin Edwards, a specialist planning barrister, and John Martin, a planning law consultant, take quite the opposite view in an article in the Estates Gazette edition of 21st September. They are of the view that the “local authority that approved the golf course neglected a series of key considerations in the process.” Their article concludes:
“It is difficult to summarise a 209-paragraph judgment and it is worthy of reading in full. It is one of the best planning judgments for a long time, partly due to the issues discussed and partly to the fact that it is entirely readable. For this judgment, the judge’s scorecard should show a ‘hole in one’.”
[Italics are mine]
If you have not yet read Justice Haddon-Cave’s judgment, click here.
Also worth reading is this UK Human Rights Blog article.
Justice Haddon-Cave refused MVDC and Longshot leave to appeal because, in his opinion, any appeal was doomed to fail. The planning specialist barrister and the planning law consultant named above clearly think Justice Haddon-Cave gave a sound and correct judgment. So why, therefore, is MVDC asking the Court of Appeal leave to appeal against the judgment.? Why are MVDC officers once again being asked to defend a decision that went against their recommendations?
Who took this decision to apply to appeal against the judgment? Why cannot the residents of Mole Valley be given the wording of the external legal advice upon which it is taking this step?
There has been enough perversity about this matter. It is high time we had transparency!