Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Perhaps a few more things are starting to make sense?
In 2007 Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council were found after the Judicial Review into the Coatham Planning Process, were found guilty in the High Court. They were found to have acted unlawfully due to bias and pre-determination. The councils new leader George Dunning and the Labour MP Vera Baird both admitted, after this decision was made, that they had known all along that what the old coalition had done in forcing that planning application through, was wrong.
This explains why the council did not then appeal the decision of the High Court but it does not explain why the Labour council challenged the Judicial Review in the first place, if they knew all along that the planning process was unlawful? Why try and defend something that you know to be wrong?
And it does not explain why, when the judgement was made against the council, did Persimmon homes appeal against the judgement? It also does not explain why when there was so much proof of bias pre-determination, did the Court of Appeal overturn the original High Court ruling? Afterall, if signing the development agreement two days before the local elections were held and two weeks before Government Office North East had decided as to whether or not they were going to call the scheme in isn't proof of bias and pre-determination, then what is? I mean, how on earth did the council know that it wouldn't be called in and that it wouldn't go to a public inquiry and possibly stopped, especially as the MP herself had suggested publicly that it should be called in?
Today, I was googling around as I was on Saturday when I found out that Persimmons founder had donated tens of thousands of pounds to the Conservative Party. What should I come up with? Only that the same founder of Persimmon Homes was the grandson of the 15th Duke of Norfolk and was page boy to the Queen of England herself at her Majestys Coronation in 1953.
Make of that what you will.
This explains why the council did not then appeal the decision of the High Court but it does not explain why the Labour council challenged the Judicial Review in the first place, if they knew all along that the planning process was unlawful? Why try and defend something that you know to be wrong?
And it does not explain why, when the judgement was made against the council, did Persimmon homes appeal against the judgement? It also does not explain why when there was so much proof of bias pre-determination, did the Court of Appeal overturn the original High Court ruling? Afterall, if signing the development agreement two days before the local elections were held and two weeks before Government Office North East had decided as to whether or not they were going to call the scheme in isn't proof of bias and pre-determination, then what is? I mean, how on earth did the council know that it wouldn't be called in and that it wouldn't go to a public inquiry and possibly stopped, especially as the MP herself had suggested publicly that it should be called in?
Today, I was googling around as I was on Saturday when I found out that Persimmons founder had donated tens of thousands of pounds to the Conservative Party. What should I come up with? Only that the same founder of Persimmon Homes was the grandson of the 15th Duke of Norfolk and was page boy to the Queen of England herself at her Majestys Coronation in 1953.
Make of that what you will.
// posted by Chris McGlade @ 5:45 AM 
