• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Tottenham Hotspur Stadium - Licence To Stand

What a load of nonsense is that. So because of Levy always talking about financial sustainability for the project to work they are saying there was a chance it would never get built. Yes / No
 
so the Josif's are saying that making of the CPO is flawed as during that time Spurs were pursuing the possibility of relocating the club to Stratford. So during that time there was no real plan no real financial viability of the scheme.

but i don't find how it makes any sense, as we'd need to plan for contingency and obviously moving to Stratford was Plan B.
 
I think they're basically saying Spurs weren't committed enough for a CPO to be issued.

B9oq-4MIAAAwJVX.jpg
 
3 challenges to the CPO are its legality, the certainty of delivery of the scheme and material changes to the scheme.

Don't see how they can get anywhere with number 2 and 3 judging by proceedings so far.
 
Makes Lilywhite House make a lot of sense now - Easy to argue that we were committed to the development of the site as shown by the now fully open College and offices.

No coincidence we announced this yesterday!
 
imcallingbullsh*t said:
TheOffshoregame twitter feed seems to be the rest. Looks reading between the lines that Judge isnt best impressed. Im reading it that because we hadnt commited to building the stadium at the point of CPO that it wasnt valid. Plus if the stadium was not to be built then the whole CPO was not financially viable.

Unless there is a severe loophole i think it will get thrown out pretty quickly.
Click to expand...

Indeed - Justice Dove: "I find it a little surprising that you're asking me to retake the decision the council cabinet took in 2012"
 
Jordinho said:
3 challenges to the CPO are its legality, the certainty of delivery of the scheme and material changes to the scheme.

Don't see how they can get anywhere with number 2 and 3 judging by proceedings so far.
Click to expand...

what about the legality of the CPO?
it went through both a political and administrative process that i take is the standard way of doing things.
how can that be illegal in any way? is there a technicality that i'm missing ?
 
metalgear said:
what about the legality of the CPO?
it went through both a political and administrative process that i take is the standard way of doing things.
how can that be illegal in any way? is there a technicality that i'm missing ?
Click to expand...

They'd have to prove someone acted unlawfully I guess or that the CPO is somehow illegal.
 
Justice Dove returns to court and resumes session for the afternoon with CLM QC further outlining the details of grounds for appeal against the CPO

CLM QC: If council authority had resolved to grant a CPO conditional upon certain plans that were subsequently changed it is a misdirection challenge

CLM QC hands up a speaking note to the judge as a rebuttal to the Clubs position that significant changes to the scheme, for with the CPO was granted, will not take place

Justice Dove says 'bless you' to one of the QC's on the bench after he sneezes, adding 'we've all got it now' followed by some more courtroom laughter. Judicial banter

CLM QC: There is some mystery around the proposed naming rights sponsor for the stadium

CLM QC: The evidence demonstrates clear intention to make changes to the scheme with specific dates in mind. The relevance of this is that the Secretary of State is clearly not being informed of relevant up to date material. That material includes prima face evidence that the club could revert to an earlier set of planning obligations. A SoS who has already shown concern in this area would or should at least seek further advice

Justice Dove: The SoS did not intervene on the basis of financial viability but on social housing requirement

CLM QC: Evidence of intention to implement a scheme that has quite different viability considerations from the original agreement

CLM QC: One cannot be satisfied that the SoS would have granted permission if he had been presented with all the information around changes to the scheme

CLM QC now moving on to the scale and extent of proposed changes to the scheme

CLM QC: The scheme changes are such that the SoS may have asked to have a look at this and take a different view. There's no evidence that English Heritage have been consulted on the changes to listed buildings

CLM QC: If it appears, on the evidence, that there is a clear intention by the bodies in question to implement a different scheme to the one permission was granted for and the CPO made for it requires being drawn to attention

Justice Dove: To clarify what you (CLM QC) are asking is 'are the changes something that might have caused the SoS to come to another conclusion? CLM QC: Yes

CLM QC and Justice Dove now debating the use of the word 'and' and semi-colons in plans set out for the stadium. Could the new WHL be blocked by punctuation?

The issue centres on whether the buildings other than the stadium are considered 'ancillary' or not

Christopher Lukkart-Mummary QC has finished submitting his evidence to the judge
 
Last edited:
So, because the stadium design and the contents of the subsequent stage 3 of the development isn't 100% set and finalized, the CPO was wrongly given?

You'd think a slightly larger capacity stadium wouldn't make things any less viable.
 
It is ridiculous but not sure if they can win. All it really is a delaying tactic hoping to go back to day 1 and get a payout. There is nothing that would make a new decision on a CPO any different.
 
Stephen Whale QC will start now making submissions on behalf of the Treasury Solicitors department.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back