• 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

just read this : http://cartilagefreecaptain.sbnatio...tenham-hotspur-news-archway-cpo-suit-legality

Archway have begun their arguments to the high court against the government's Compulsory Purchase Order and those arguments aren't as flimsy as you might think.

The three points are this: (1) the CPO itself is not legal because compulsory purchase orders were never meant to apply to 56,000 seat stadiums; (2) there are serious doubts as to whether or not the stadium will actually ever be built; and (3) there have been material changes to the plan in recent years, which make the CPO untenable.​
 
just wondering also whether the spirit of the CPO is now lost in the legal mumbo jumbo. i mean the CPO is ultimately to enable the regeneration of the area around the stadium. and the josif's are happy to risk it because of a legality.
 
I have just ripped this photograph of the DM site, are the owners of these stalls Archway or are they renting the plot, by using them are we as fans putting money into the hands of Archway.

25C18A9800000578-0-image-a-4_1424173754051.jpg
 
SW QC makes clear that he is not here to represent the council but the Treasury Solicitors Department

SW QC asks the judge if he'll be adjourning at 4.30pm to which the judge makes another quip about working time directives.

SW QC: I don't accept the proposition that planning permission is not subject to the assumption of validity. In short my lord there is no ground of challenge on the validity.

SW QC: Quoting Spurs chairman Daniel Levy from statement issued reiterating the clubs commitment to 'build a world class stadium' in Tottenham

SW QC: The possible move to the Olympic stadium did not come to pass. The applicant's ground 3a, bares out the proposition that the club aren't going anywhere.

SW QC: There is a degree of artificiality about the complaints being made about the preconditions for the making of the CPO

SW QC: This has not been a case of the secretary of state taking this case lightly and reaffirming his earlier decision upon review. He took it terribly seriously. If he had come out of the blocks and instantly made the same decision then I could understand concerns but that is not the case. Having considered it carefully he has concluded that he would make the same decision again today which strikes at the articial nature of some of the complaints

SW QC: The threshold for questioning the legality of the CPO is very high and has not been reached in my view

SW QC: Nothing in place to question the validity of the cabinet approval

QC's and Judge now debating what time to start again tomorrow, again with amusing back and forth
 
Superhudd said:
I have just ripped this photograph of the DM site, are the owners of these stalls Archway or are they renting the plot, by using them are we as fans putting money into the hands of Archway.

25C18A9800000578-0-image-a-4_1424173754051.jpg
Click to expand...

Renting you'd think. You find many of them at Arsenal on alternate weekends.
 
metalgear said:
whoa. someone explain to me the "degree of artificiality" of the complaints. :(
Click to expand...
As I understand it, points I and III are contradictory. Therefore, they are not bringing the case because they disagree, they are bringing it in the hope of finding a loophole or some other legal "get-out".

So it's artificial because their real reasons for objecting to the CPO are not those they are using in court.

That's how I read the comments anyway.
 
Sorry for the ignorance but is a ruling expected today or is this something that could take a week or so?
 
I wonder how much Christopher Lukkart-Mummary costs per hour? £300-500 maybe? Still I don't think he will save Archway. You'd need a circa £1000 to £5000 per hour top top QC and even then is there a case?

It has to be a serious issue that derails a CPO. And if CLM QC is simply saying: adding 5k seats, a gym and a few more houses makes the project somehow less viable, then they are really desperate.
 
Maybe they're saying the original plans weren't viable and the club always planned on changing them once they got permission, basically deceiving the council in order to get it?
 
Jordinho said:
Maybe they're saying the original plans weren't viable and the club always planned on changing them once they got permission, basically deceiving the council in order to get it?
Click to expand...
Not as far as I can tell. The case is against the decision to grant, not that the decision was based on false information.
 
scaramanga said:
Not as far as I can tell. The case is against the decision to grant, not that the decision was based on false information.
Click to expand...

The council could not rationally conclude that the club had a viable business plan for the purposes of CPO on the evidence they had

He also says some of the plans upon which the CPO was conditional has since been changed and argues that this was the club's intention all along.
 
Jordinho said:
The council could not rationally conclude that the club had a viable business plan for the purposes of CPO on the evidence they had

He also says some of the plans upon which the CPO was conditional has since been changed and argues that this was the club's intention all along.
Click to expand...
As I understand it then, that's outside of the scope of the appeal.
 
I really cant see anything but this getting kicked out tomorrow. It appears the judge isnt exactly impressed with the case put forward.

Common sense would dictate that if the result is going to be the same, Ie CPO approved, then the judge will not re-start the process again from scratch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back