TODAY is Day 8 and the final day of the Planning Inspectorate Appeal Inquiry. Parties: Pemberstone v.
(Thread) We will be attempting to live tweet as much as we can.
Inquiry opened at 11:00am - Inspector noted that Ms Wigley and Ms Bell had experienced technical issues. Inquiry adjoined until 11:15am
Technical issues are resolved and the inquiry has resumed.
Inspector: There have been a number of documents that have been received overnight and he hasn't had opportunity to review all of them but hopes to have had chance throughout the time today.
Inspector: Revised conditions list this morning. I understand it relates to Condition 34.
Mr White: I understand the wording is agreed between Leeds and Pemberstone.
Inspector: Following discussion re: local lettings policy. I have had a number of documents from Ms Bell. I have not had chance to consider but you will rely on them today.
Ms Bell: Its a legal position on whether the council can enter a 106 in relation to local lettings policy.
Inspector: I have the Leeds letting policy and emergency letting policy.
Ms Bell: Relevant point is 3.2.
Mr White: I will make a point later regards to it.
Inspector: Hot off the press, there has been a revised plan there has been an update to Plan 4 by Mr Sheppard.
Mr White: That would be the one that would be executed subject to anything you would say Sir.
Mr White: One more vacancy in that one resident gave notice on Wednesday that they wished to vacate.
Inspector: Is the notice the same type of period?
Mr White: I understand the AST position is one months notice sir for the tenant.
Inspector: So the vacancy takes place mid November.
Mr White: That is entirely right.
Mr White: One other matter. Timings and how you see today working.
Ms Wigley: There are run of emails in last twenty minutes I haven't had chance to look at.
Ms Wigley: I don't appear to have revised conditions list.
Inspector: Updated conditions from council Victoria Hinchcliffe-Walker sent at 10:26am but it was sent to Mr Lynch.
Mr White: Mr Sheppard has just sent it to Ms Wigley.
Ms Wigley: I think I have everything but I will need a little time to review them documents.
Inspector : Planning obligation and the conditions hope to deal with that by 12:15pm and then take a break and then yourself Ms Wigley first.
Inspector: That would take us to 13:30 on your time estimate. It would then be Ms Bell after that. We will review the lunch break and see how we go.
Inspector : I was thinking we could have the full hour but we may need to shorten that now given the additional documents and the technical problems.
Inspector: In any event we are now looking at finishing after 4pm
(Discussions took place around costs and timings.)
Inspector: Can we turn to the obligations. Documents I have are the obligation and revised statement from the council. Although we had initial discussion of this and the revised document takes
Inspector: It in no means means I have reached a decision. Both of these relate to conditions IF planning permission is granted.
Inspector: I want to deal with technical part before we get to the operational part.
Inspector: Page 13 para 3.2.2 on the penultimate line reference to para 3.5.11 which doesn't exist and I think it should be 3.6.11.
Mr White: You are absolutely right and Mr Cook is on call and I will ask him to make that amendment sir.
Inspector: I have no further comment on the document. Are all the parties content it will be executed in that form.
Mr White: Absolutely.
Ms Bell: Absolutely yeah. They are happy with it.
Inspector: I know @SaveOurHomeLS26 are not a party to that document but do you have any comments?
Ms Wigley: No sir.
Pemberstone have just confirmed they have not sought any motorcycle storage for this appeal site. It appears according to Ms Hinchcliffe-Walker that the policy condition requires both Cycle and Motorcycle unless Motorcycles can be stored in a private secure place like a garage.
Suggestion by Pemberstone to make another revision. We have lost track of the number of revisions that are continually made to a variety of documents and plans in this inquiry.
Inquiry adjourned until 2pm
The Inquiry is about to resume. Ms Wigley the barrister for @SaveOurHomeLS26 will be next on to give her closing submissions to this inquiry.
Inspector: Ms Wigley have you sent your closings yet?
Ms Wigley: Yes a few moments ago sir. It should now be on its way to reach you.
Ms Wigley: Update on a couple of matters , the note on VAT which was sent to me this morning. As far as I am concerned it is agreed. I circulated to my clients I would be saying this by 2pm.
The note on households on Protected Characteristics. We don't necessarily accept it reflects a true position but accept that is the position put forward.
Inspector: I am waiting for the VAT note to come in I don't have that.
Mr White: I will have Mr Sheppard to send that.
Inspector: Street design and travel plan to be added. The $ statement had reference to appendix and I don't appear to have that. I don't suppose its important but the missing paragraph is important.
Ms Hinchcliffe-Walker: I believe its become separated and no one has the appendix and I will resolve that and the missing paragraph later today.
Ms Wigley: Closing submissions on behalf of @SaveOurHomeLS26 to avoid overburdening this inquiry. I draw out the relevant points
It is agreed that the approach for considerations for alternative developments are material to the determination of this case. The test is the Mount Cook case. The reason I say that as set out in a moment the development results in a total loss of a non-designated heritage asset
It also will result in a total loss of the residents and the vibrant community that exists interferes with the right of a home under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
There can be no suggestion and other than Dr Usher no one has made the suggestion that the order determining it as designated defective means they are a danger to people.
We apologise but due to unavoidable situation our live tweeting was not possible.
Ms Wigley: it is the position of @SaveOurHomeLS26 that this appeal must be refused.
Mr White: First to say, thank you for how you have handled the inquiry. The way you have dealt with it on behalf of all three parties.
Mr White: Thank you for Ms Wigley’s clients and I know its difficult for them but there behaviour has been immaculate throughout these proceedings.
Inquiry closed at 17:10

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Judicial Domicide

Judicial Domicide Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JDomicide

6 Oct
We have just had confirmed that no objections had been raised to us live tweeting the Pemberstone Planning Appeal v @SaveOurHomeLS26. We will use this as the thread to tweet anything we feel is substantial. We will do our best to cover the main points but must clarify
We have not been provided with any documentary material or timetable of events. We are somewhat blind therefore of the format of these proceedings and how it will take place.
For the Appellant (Pemberstone) is Sasha White QC who will be calling 6 witnesses.
Read 292 tweets
25 Aug
I realised today that I struggled to explain the securitisation of Court Claims. In a nutshell it is this: a Law Firm flirts a portfolio of cases wrapped up in a pretty bow to a bunch of third party litigation funding providers, they all bid on them anonymously not knowing what’s
in the pot but knowing that from running the numbers and crunching the algorithms they can yield a good prospect of success on the portfolio of claims and that even with accounting for a good number of losses that they will make a considerable return on their investment.
Especially if their law team can obtain and bamboozle the odd litigant in person defendant with indemnity costs orders and other quite unethical practices such as running litigation with their client becoming a vehicle or economic weapon of mass destruction.
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!